PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


Shelf.... 


BV  66TTS73 — "^ 
Stanton,  Robe»ri-  r^ 

1810-1885      ^ivmgstor^ 
Prelacy  examined         i 


PRELACY    EXAMINED: 


B  E  I  N  f; 


STRICTURES  UPON  THREE  DISCOURSES,  ENTITLED  "  THE  UNITY  OF 

THE  CHURCH;  TiIE  MINISTRY;  THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION  ; 

BY  RT.  REVEREND  JAMES  HERVEY   OTEY,  D.  D. 

BISHOP  OF  TENNESSEE  :" 


TOfiETHKR    WITH    A 


DEFENCE  OF   THE  TRUE  CONSTITUTION  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN   MINISTRY: 


EXAMINATION  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 
BYR.  L."  STANTON, 

LATE    PASTOR  OF   THE    PRBSBYTER^A^f    CHURCH,  WOODVIIXE,  MISS. 


"  He  that  is  first  in  his  own  cause  seemeth  just;  but  his  neighbor  cometh  and 
searcheth  him." — Solomoi*. 


NEW-ORLEANS: 
A.  BRUSLE,  CORNER  CHARTRES  AND  CONTI. 

1844. 


E  R  R  A  T  U  M  . 

On  page  77,  rentli  line  from  top,  for  "ara^wrtfpfu,"  read  f«x»jpwcar. 


TO   THE 

MEMBERS  OF  THE  CONGREGATIONS  IN  WOODVILLE,  MISS.,  WHO 
UNITED  IN  ATTENDING  UPON  THE  DELIVERY  OF  THE 
DISCOURSE  WHICH  FORMS  THE  FOUNDA- 
TION  OF  THE  FOLLOWING 
CHAPTERS: 

AND  TO  ALL  OTHERS,  WHETHER  PROFESSING  CHRISTIANS,  OR  NOT, 

WHO  FEEL  INTERESTED  IN  THE  PREVALENCE  OF  TRUE 

RELIGION  AND  JUST  AND  LIBERAL  SENTIMENTS, 

IN  OPPOSITION  TO  THE  UNHALLOWED 
ASSUMPTIONS  OF  PRELACY: 

THIS  PUBLICATION  IS  RESPECTFULLY  INSCRIBED,  WITH  EARNEST 

AVISHES  FOR  THEIR  PRESENT  AND 

ETERNAL  WELFARE: 

BY  THEIR    SINCERE  FRIEND, 

THE  AUTHOR. 


cf  lYi 
V 


>:    NOV   9    18G5 
><     ^ .A> 


CONTENTS 


Page 

Correspondence 9 

Preface, 11 

CHAPTER  I. 

MIRROR   OF   PRELACY — SHOWING    THE    NECESSITY    FOR    DISCUSSION. 

Bishop  Otey's  views  of  other  Churches, 14 

Views  of  other  Churches,  by  English  Prelatists, J9 

No  salvation  without  the  pale  of  Prelacy, 19 

Views  of  other  Churches,  by  American  Prelatists, 21 

No  salvation  out  of  a  Prelatical  Church, 21 

Tiie  ministry  of  other  Churches  declared  to  be  without  authority, 23 

People  warned  not  to  attend  other  Churches, 24 

CHAPTER  II. 

BISHOP    OTEY's    MISREPRESENTATIONS. 

He  misrepresents  his  own  work, 29 

He  misrepresents  the  Confession  of  Faith, 30 

He  misrepresents  the  Presbyterian  Church, 33 

Comparison  of  the  Episcopal  with  other  Churches, 36 

Another  misrepresentation  of  the  Confession  of  Faith, 40 

He  further  misrepresents  the  Presbyterian  Church, i'i 

He  misrepresents  Presbyterian  writers, 45 

CHAPTER  in. 

THE    CHIEF    POINTS    AT    ISSUE    BETWEEN    PRELATISTS  AND  OTHERS  DETERMINED 
BY  AN    APPEAL    TO    SCRIPTURE. 

The  points  at  issue  stated, 49 

Bishop  Otey's  argument  from  Scripture  stated .51 

The  points  at  issue  discussed, 59 

Sec.  1.  Parity  of  the  ministry  shown  from  the  Ministerial  Commission,..  , , .  .  .''),'> 

Sec.  2.  Identity  of  Bishops  and  Presbyters, '  ' 

Sec  3.  Presbyters  clothed  with  the  functions  of  government  and  ordination,.  oU 

Sec.  4.  Barnabas  and  Saul  ordained  by  Presbyters, 73 

A 


VI  CGNTKINT*. 

Pasf. 

Sec.  5.  Timotliy  ordained  by  Presbyters  to  the  rank  of  a  Presbyter  enly 80 

Five  prelatical  theories  for  Timothy's  ordination  stated, 81 

First  theory  examined, 82 

Second  theoiy  examined, 86 

Third  theory  examined, 94 

Fourth  theory  examined, 9^ 

Fifth  theory  examined, 101 

Skc.  6.  Timothy,  Barnabas,  Jamts,  Andronicus,  Junia,  Silas,  Titus,  &c.,  not 

Apostles, 102 

Sec.  7.  The  true  character  of  the  Apostolic  office, 107 

The  peculiarity  of  the  Apostolic  office, 107 

The  Apostles  both  ordinary  and  extraordinary  ministers, 110 

Presbyters  the  successors  to  the  ordinary  ministry  of  the  Apostles, 112 

Sec.  8.  The  rank  and  character  of  Deacons, 114 

Sec.  9    Recapitulation,  and  conclusion  of  the  Scripture  argument, 118 

CHAPTER  IV. 

VIEWS   OF    THE    EARLY    CHRISTIAN    FATHERS. 

Reasons  why  the  Fathers  cannot  decide  the  present  controversy, 120 

Reasons  why  we  appeal  to  the  Fathers, 124 

What  Prelatists  must  prove  before  they  can  claim  the  Fathers. 125 

Points  which  we  may  jirove  from  the  Fathers, ]28 

Bishop  Otey's  witnesses  among  the  Fathers  examined, 129 

I.  Clement  of  Rome, 129 

H.  Ignatius, 131 

HI.  Polycarp, 134 

IV.  Ireneeus, 134 

V.  Clement  of  Alexandria, , 137 

VI.  Tertullian, 139 

VII.  Origen, 141 

VIII.  Cyprian, 142 

IX.  Ambrose, , 146 

X.  Jerome, ,  147 

XI.  Augustine, „ 149 

XII.  Chrysostom, 150 

XIII.  Tbeodoret, 1 151 

XIV.  Primasius, 151 

Presbyters  empowered  to  ordain,  shown  also  from  ancient  Cooncils,  &c., 151 

XV.  Ignatius'  Epistle  to  Hiero, 151 

XVI.  Council  of  Ancyra, 151 

XVII.  Council  of  Nice 152 

XVIII.  Council  of  Carthage, 153 

Conclusions  from  the  Fathers  and  Councils,.... 154 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE    APOSTOLICAL    SUCCESSION. 

The  Apostolical  Succession  defined, 157 

What  is  alleged  by  Prelatists, 16^ 


CONTENTS.  Vll 

Page 

What  Prelatists  are  bound  to  prove, , 162 

Prelatical  concessions  to  the  impossibility  of  proving  the  Succession, 164 

In  what  channel  does  the  Succession  run, 167 

English  and  American  Prelatists  must  trace  their  Succession  through  the  Romish 

Church  and  the  Roman  Pontiffs, 167 

Rome  cannot  be  avoided, 170 

I.  There  is  no  certainty  in  tracing  the  Succession, 173 

First  five  Bishops  of  Rome  uncertain, 176 

No  proof  of  their  ordination,  &,c., 179 

H.  The  pretended  Succession  has  been  broken — ten  cases  shown, .181 

First  case. — A  Bishop  of  Rome  Avithout  any  Episcopal  consecration, 182 

Second  case. — A  false  Bishop  of  Rome  gave  orders  to  an  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury  183 

Third  case. — Schisms  among  the  Bisliops  of  Rome, 184 

Fourth  case. — More  Schisms, 185 

Fifth  case. — An  English  Prelate  consecrated  by  an  Archdeacon, 186 

Sixth  case. — English  Prelates  ordained  by  Scottish  Presbyters, 186 

Seventh,  case. — An  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  consecrated  by  ejected  Pre- 
lates,  188 

Eighth  case  — Boys  consecrated  Prelates, 189 

Ninth  case. — Simony  of  the  Roman  and  English  Prelates, 191 

Tenth  case. — General  corruption, 194 

III.  Further  considerations  v/hich  may  affect  the  soundness  of  the  Succession,. 200 
The  whole  English  Church  excommunicated  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,200 

All  Ecclesiastical  power  vested  in  the  crown 200 

American  Prelates  consecrated  under  an  Act  of  the  British  Parliament,.... 201 

An  American  Prelate  never  prelatically  baptised, 202 

Bishop  Hobart's  consecration  pronounced  invalid, 202 

CHAPTER  VI. 

FURTHER    MISREPRESENTATIONS    OF     BISHOP    OTEY. — CONCESSIONS    OF   THE    BRI- 
TISH   REFORMERS. DEGENERACY    OF   MODERN    PRELACY. PRESENT 

TENDENCIES   OF    THE    PRELATICAL    SYSTEM. — CONCLUSION. 

I.  Bishop  Otey's  misrepresentations  corrected  respecting  alleged  concessions  of 

Presbyterians  and  others, 205 

Views  of  Beza, 207 

Views  of  Calvin, ..209 

Views  of  Luther, 212 

Views  of  Melancthon, 213 

II.  Concessions  of  the  most  eminent  divines  of  the  Church  of  England, 214 

Concessions  of  Bishop  While, 218 

The  British  Reformers  upheld  Prelacy  not  upon  Divine  but  human  authority,. 2 19 

III.  Degeneracy  of  Modern  Pi-elacy, 220 

Views  of  the  Tractarians, 221 

The  Tractist  system  destroys  Christianity, 221 

This  system  leads  directly  to  Popery, 223 

What  Romanists  think  of  Tractarianism 224 

How  Exten-sive  the  system  in  England  and  the  United  States, 224 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

Pa6E 

IV.  The  present  tendencies  of  Prelacy, 228 

Intolerance  of  Prelacy, 229 

It  claims  the  right  of  coercion, 229 

Conclusion, «.  .234 


APPENDIX. 

A.— The  Apostles' Creed, 1 

B. — Early  Bisliops  not  Prelates, 2 

C. — Testimonies  against  the  Apostolical  Succession, 4 

D. — ftlatters  of  a  personal  nature,  respecting  a  question  of  veracity  between  Bi- 
shop Otey  and  the  Author, 4 

E  — Bishop  Otey's  scheme  for  tracing  the  Succession  disproved, 10 

F. — The  Act  of  the  British  Parliament,  under  which  American  Prelates  were  or- 
dained,     12 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


WOODVILLE,  MISS.,  Mat/  9, 1843. 
Rev.  Mr.  Stanton: 

Dear  Sir: — Our  object  iu  writing-,  is  to  request  of  you,  for  publication,  a  copy  of  the  Discourse 
on  the  "  Constitution  of  the  Christian  Ministry,"  delivered  by  you,  on  Sunday,  tlie  30th  of  April. 
We  feel  assured  that  we  but  speak  the  almost  unanimous  wish  of  your  audience  in  urging  this 
request. 

From  the  necessity  for  condensation  in  aMiscourse  delivered  before  a  promiscuous  audience,  wt^ 
are  aware  that  much  was  slightly  noticed  which  required  clearer  exposition,  and  some  things  omit- 
ted which  would  make  the  argument  more  perfect  and  conclusive.  We  beg  that  you  will  make 
such  enlargements  and  additions  as  jou  may  deem  necessary.  And  we  would  take  the  liberty  of 
suggesting  to  you  the  propriety  and  importance  of  noticing  the  practical  results  which  must  fol- 
low the  urging  of  such  claims  as  are  insisted  on  by  Bishop  Otcy. 
With  assurances  of  the  highest  respect  and  esteem,  we  are, 

Your  obedient  servants, 
JOHN  W.  BURRUSS,  HENRY  CRAMPTON, 

W.  S.  HAMILTON,  C.  H.  STONE, 

T.  C.  BROWN,  II.  N.  MARTIN, 

WM.  HALSEY,  JAMES  L.  TRASK, 

TIIOS.  S.  HERBERT,  WM.  TIGNER, 

JAS.  H.  MUSE,  JAMES  WALKER, 

H.  F.  SIMRALL,  I.  H.  STANWOOD, 

T.   DAVIDSON,  S.  A.  PHELPS, 

T.  H.  OSWALD,  M.  M    HESTER, 

C.  A.  BULKLEY,  F.  SOULE, 

E.  H.  WAILES,  ROBT.  LAYSON, 

A.  G.  FOSTER,  J.  S.  LEWIS, 

FIELDING   DAVIS,  L.  K.  BARBER, 

A.  LEFFINGWELL,  E.  J.  McGEHEE. 


WOODVILLE,   May  15,  18l:j. 
Gentlemen: 

Your  letter,  requesting  for  publication  a  copy  of  the  discourse  recently  delivered  by  mc  ou  the 
Constitution  of  the  Christian  Ministry,  has  been  received. 

Jt  is  perhaps-  scarcely  necessary  to  say,  that  this  discourse  was  prepared  amidst  the  pressure  of 
numerous  professional  duties,  without  any  reference  to  its  publication.  Its  subject  lies  without  Ihr 
range  of  those  topics  which  are  ordinarily  discussed  in  the  services  of  the  sanctuary.  Tlie  iuu 
mediate  occasion  of  its  preparation  was  explained  when  delivered,  and  need  not  be  rppeatep 
here.    In  order  to  give  such  au  exhibition  of  the   subjctt  as  would  be  in  any  dgrec  satisfactory, 


X  CORRESPONDENCE. 

it  was  necessary  that  a  wide  field  should  be  explored,  and  the  teachings  of  history  exaiiiiited  ilirough 
a  long  series  of  years.  To  do  this  ia  a  single  discourse,  necessarily  limited  me  to  a  cursory  glance 
at  the  various  topics  brought  into  view.  And  indeed,  although  the  delivery  of  the  discourse  oc- 
cupied more  than  three  hours,  some  points,  absolutely  essential  to  a  full  and  entirely  satisfactory 
exhibition,  were  despatched  in  brief,  extemporaneously,  while  others  equally  essential,  were  omit- 
ted altogether. 

Under  those  circumstances,  it  would  be  unjust  to  you  as  well  as  to  myself,  to  send  the  discourse 
to  the  press  just  as  it  was  preached,  even  if  it  were  possible  to  do  so  by  recalling  the  extempo- 
raneous portions  of  it.  But  you  do  not  ask  this.  You  "  are  aware,"  from  what  I  stated  to  the 
audience  at  the  time,  "  that  much  was  slightly  noticed  which  required  clearer  exposition,  and  some 
things  omitted  which  would  make  the  argument  more  perfect  and  conclusive ; "  and  you  express 
the  desire  that  I  "will  make  such  enlargements  and  additions"  as  I  "may  deem  necessary." 

To  the  spirit  of  your  request,  thus  understood,  I  answer,  that  having  been  informed  that  Bishop 
Otey  intends  soon  to  publish  several  discourses  on  the  "  Apostolical  Succession "  and  kindred  sub- 
jects, including  the  one  which  I  heard  and  to  which  alone  mine  was  a  reply,  I  will  with  your  con- 
currence defer  the  publicatiou  of  my  discourse  until  after  the  appearance  of  his  series,  and  then  will 
prepare  such  matter  in  reply  as  the  case  may  seem  to  demand. 

You  state  that  you  "  feel  assured  that  "  you  "  but  speak  the  almost  unanimous  wish  of "  my 
"  audience,  in  urging  this  request."  I  am  aware  that  the  views  presented  in  that  discourse  did  not 
receive  the  approbation  of  all  who  beard  them ;  and  1  do  not  anticipate  any  more  favor  for  them 
when  published.  Yet,  I  hope  to  set  forth  nothing  which  can  reasonably  offend  any  unprejudiced 
lover  of  truth. 

Permit  me  to  say,  gentlemen,  in  conclusion,  that  I  shall  not  suffer  the  suggestion  made  at  the 
close  of  your  letter  to  pass  unimproved.  The  "  practical  results  which  must  follow  the  urging  of 
such  claims  as  were  insisted  on  by  Bishop  Otey,"  form  an  aspect  of  the  general  subject  to  which 
I  could  only  direct  the  momentary  attention  of  my  audience ;  and  yet,  it  is  an  aspect  fraught  with 
the  deepest  interest  and  importance — nay,  with  the  most  thrilling  alarm.  If,  as  declared  by  one 
of  Scotland's  sweetest  bards — 

"  Coming  events  cast  their  shadows  before, " — 
the  times   in  which  we  live  are  pregnant  with   movements  in  church  and  state,  which  in  their  is- 
sue will  doubtless  most  deeply  affect   the   social,  civil,  and   religious  interests  of  the   present  and 
coming  generations — whether  for  weal  or  wo,  it  were  vain  to  attempt  the  solution.    In  such  a  cri- 
sis, every  man,  in  his  appropriate  sphere,  has  a  duty   to  perform.    In  acceding   to  your    request 
for  publication,  I  may  but  discharge  mine  at  this  particular  juncture  of  time  and  circumstances. 
With  sentiments  of  high  esteem,  and  with  the  'most  fervent  wishes  for  your  welfare, 
I  am, 
Gentlemen,  ^ 

Your  friend  and  fellow -citizen, 

R.  L.  STANTON. 
John  W.  Burruss,  Esq.,        J 
Col.  Wm.  S.  Hamilton,  j- 

and  others.  \ 


PREFACE. 


The  foregoing  correspondence  may  sufficiently  explain  to  most  readers  of  these 
pages,  tiie  occasion  of  tlieir  publication.     To  otbers,  a  word  may  be  necessary. 

Tiie  Author  heard  Bishop  Otey  preach  the  third  discourse  of  his  series  here  review- 
ed, in  the  Episcopal  Church,  in  Woodvilie,  Mississippi.  That  discourse  asserted  and 
attempted  to  vindicate  the  claim  of  the  clergy  Episcopally  ordained,  to  be  the  only 
authorized  ministers  of  the  Christian  religion.  It  denied  that  other  Christian  denom- 
inations, (such  as  the  Methodist,  Baptist,  Presbyterian,  Congregationalist,  Lutheran, 
Dutch  Reformed,  &c.,&c.,)  were  Churches  at  all,  declaring  them  destitute  of  an 
"  essential  feature  "  of  the  visible  Church  of  Christ.  The  fair  consequence,  indeed 
the  avowed  conclusion,  from  these  premises,  was,  that  the  ministers  of  these  large 
bodies  of  Christians  had  no  authority  to  preach  the  Gospel  and  administer  its  sacra- 
ments, and  that  the  numerous  private  members  attached  to  these  several  denomina- 
tions, did  not  belong  to  the  Church  of  Christ. 

The  claim  thus  asserted,  was  exclusive — the  principles  involved,  momentous. — 
The  discourse  as  heard  from  the  lips  of  the  preacher  was  plausible.  It  was  not,  there- 
fore, matter  of  wonder,  that  some  conscientious  members  of  another  Church  who 
were  present,  were  for  the  moment,  (as  the  Author  afterwards  learned,)  somewhat 
uneasy  about  their  Church  connection.  Before  leaving  the  Episcopal  Church,  the 
Author,  who  was  Pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  same  town,  formed  the 
determination  to  reply  to  the  sermon  of  Bishop  Otey,  as  soon  as  engagements  would 
permit.  He  deemed  it  due  to  those  who  had  called  him  to  be  their  Pastor,  to  vin- 
dicate his  disputed  claim  to  their  regard  as  a  duly  authorized  minister  of  the  GospeL 
It  was  also  a  duty  which  he  owed  to  God  to  vindicate  his  truth. 

The  reply  was  preached  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  Woodvilie,  before  the  unit- 
ed congregations  of  the  Methodists  and  Presbyterians.  A  portion  of  the  Episcopal 
congregation  was  also  present,  (the  Rector  being  absent  from  town,)  and  a  number 
of  citizens  and  strangers  with  whose  religious  predilections  the  Author  is  not  ac- 
quainted. The  preceding  correspondence  soon  after  followed.  The  names  annex- 
ed to  the  letter  of  retjuest  embrace  members  of  the  various  religious  denominations, 
((except  the  Episcopal,)  and  worthy  citizens  who  are  not  known  to  be  connected  with 
any  branch  of  the  Christian  Church. 

The  Author  has  heard  it  reported,  that  when  he  preached,  in  December  last,  his 
farewell  sermon  to  the  congregation  in  Woodvilie,  of  which  he  was  then  Pastor,  he 
expressed  regrets  at  having  preached  the  discourse  iu  reply  to  Bishop  Otey.    This  is 


XU  PREFACE. 

in  itself  a  small  matter;  but  as  truth,  even  in  small  matters,  is  always  better  than  its  op- 
posite, he  here  subjoins  an  extract  from  his  farewell  sermon  of  the  part  alluded  to. — 
It  is  given  verbatim  as  then  preached,  and  it  is  all  that  has  any  bearing  upon  the  mat- 
ter in  question: 

"  In  reviewing  the  time  for  nearly  three  years  past  that  I  have  labored  among  you, 
there  are  some  things  connected  with  my  public  ministry  which  are  causes  of  regret, 
and  some  which  are  sources  of  joy.  I  will  notice  some  of  these,  and  relieve  your 
attention. 

"  1.  It  is  a  source  of  joy,  as  I  reflect  upon  it,  that  I  have  endeavored,  in  all  my  pub- 
lic ministrations,  to  preach  the  essential  and  fundamental  principles  of  the  simple 
Gospel  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  as  I  understand  them  to  be  revealed.  While  I  am 
sincerely,  from  the  convictions  of  my  understanding,  and  the  affections  of  my  heart, 
attached  to  that  branch  of  the  Christian  Church  in  which  I  am  an  authorised  minis- 
ter, yet  I  am  conscious  of  never  having  labored  to  build  up  a  party.  God  forbid  that  I 
ever  should!  The  great  principles  which  lie  at  the  foundation  of  the  christian  sys- 
tem, and  in  which  all  evangelical  denominations  agree,  as  being  essential  to  salvation, 
ought  never  to  be  put  in  competition  with  the  shibboleths  of  any  sect,  or  be  sacrificed 
upon  the  altar  of  any  party.  While  I  have  endeavored  to  develop  and  defend  the 
doctrines  of  revelation,  I  have  always  strived  so  to  do  it,  as  not  necessarily  to  olFend 
those  who  understand  them  differently.  Indeed,  I  do  not  now  remember  to  have 
ever  preached  but  one  discourse,  which  may  properly  be  styled  controversial.  The 
occasion  of  this  you  well  remember.  It  was  in  defence — not  of  the  doctrines — not  of 
the  government,  but  of  the  very  existence  (except  as  confined  to  very  narrow  limits) — 
yea,  the  very  existence  of  the  Church  of  Christ!  Bretliren !  When  the  very  citadel 
of  Christianity  is  attacked,  you  may  expect  me,  wherever  I  am,  to  raise  ray  voice  in 
its  defence.  I  have  nothing  to  regret  in  this  matter.  If  regrets  are  in  place  here, 
they  might  appropriately  grace  the  other  side.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  it  is  a  mat- 
ter oi  joy  that  God  enabled  me  to  speak  in  behalf  of  his  truth.  Were  the  like  cir- 
cumstances to  be  enacted  over  again,  I  should  not  wish  my  part  to  be  altered  in  the 
least,  except  that  the  defence  which  I  entered  might  be  perfected  and  rendered  more 
forcible.  And  I  assure  you,  and  here  pledge  myself,  in  all  sincerity  and  calmness, 
before  God,  that  should  a  similar  blow^,  at  any  future  time,  be  struck  at  the  foundation 
of  our  hopes,  among  the  people  w^herever  my  lot  may  be  cast,  if  I  do  not  lift  my 
voice  in  defence  of  the  truth,  I  can  say  with  one  of  old — '  Let  my  right  hand  forget 
her  cunning,  and  let  my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  my  mouth.'  Brethren !  the  truth 
must  be  defended  at  all  hazards.  It  is  to  me  cause  of  joy  only  that  I  have  been  able 
to  contribute  to  its  defence  heretofore — may  it  be  so  hereafter." 

The  Author  would  say  in  conclusion,  that  when  he  began  this  work,  he  had  no  in 
tention  to  write  a  Book.  For  its  too  great  length,  he  only  pleads  an  Author's  stereo- 
typed apology — it  grew  upon  his  hands  beyond  his  expectations.  May  the  blessing  of 
God  attend  it,  and  be  abundantly  multiplied  to  all  his  people. 


PRELACY    EXAMINED. 


CHAPTER  I. 

MIRROR  OF  PRELACY-SHOWING  THE   NECESSITY  FOR  DISCUSSION. 
"  Quem  Delias  vult  perdere,  prms  dementat." — Horace. 

As  IV  the  pulpit  discourse  delivered  last  Spring,  so  here,  we  wish  in 
the  outset  to  exhibit  some  of  the  beauties  of  that  system  we  are  about  to 
examine,  as  they  are  reflected  from  the  pages  of  prelatical  writers. 
They  are  painted  in  gaudy  colors,  and  will  show  in  a  palpable  light,  the 
necessity  for  a  full  development  of  the  subject  before  the  people. 

The  extreme  exclusiveness  and  arrogant  intolerance  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  in  these  latter  days,  biuh  in  Enifland  and  America  are 
so  abhorrent,  that  they  would  defy  cred.dity  itself,  were  not  the  evidence 
too  manifest  and  overwlielming  to  be  resisted. 

The  necessity  which  is  1  lid  upon  non-prelatical  denominations  to  enter 
into  this  discussion,  is  this :  If^e  are,  one  and  all,  regarded  by  Episco- 
palians, as  being  no  part,  either  in  form  or  fact,  of  the  Churck  of 
Christ!  This  is  the  sentiment  of  Bishop  Otey  ;  it  is  the  sentiment  of  a 
very  large  number  of  the  "  Bishops  and  other  Clergy"  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  at  the  present  day.  It  is  proclaimed  from  the  pulpit,  from  the 
press,  at  the  fireside,  by  t'tie  way,  when  they  go  in  and  when  they  go  out, 
when  they  rise  up  and  when  they  sic  down,  by  night  and  by  day,  at 
home  and  abroad.  'I'here  is,  !at  this  moment,  a  simultaneous  and  seem- 
ingly preconcerted  effort  throughout  the  United  States  as  well  as  <  n 
the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic,  to  push  this  matter  to  the  utmost  limit  of 
endurance.     We  do  not  find  fault  with  their  zeal.     It  is  commendable. 

We  only  wish  it  were  expended  in  a  better  cause.     While  such  move- 

C 


14  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

ments  are  in  progress,  however,  our  silence  is  misinterpreted  by  some  into 
an  acknowledgment  of  the  weakness  of  our  cause.  We  must,  then,  apeak. 
The  necessity  is  thus  forced  upon  us.  We  are  declared  to  be  "  no 
ministers,"  our  orders  of  "  no  validity,"  our  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ment "  mockery,"  and  the  people  of  our  charges  "  without  the  pale  of 
God's  covenanted  mercy,"  &c,  &c.;  while  those  ministers  who  have 
been  ordained  by  a  Prelate,  are  fully  authorized  (and  only  they)  to 
preach  the  Gospel,  and  administer  the  sacraments  of  the  Church  of 
Christ.  This  then  is  our  case — we  must  confute  these  pretensions,  or 
admit  that  they  are  just.  "  An  oft  repeated,  uncontradicted  falsehood, 
frequently  passes  for  truth." 

When  we  preached  on  this  subject,  we  gave  a  few  extracts  from  pre- 
latical  writers,  showing  that  some  of  them,  besides  calling  hard  names, 
declared  that  out  of  the  Episcopal  Church  there  was  no  salvation.  Some 
Episcopalians  seemed  astounded  that  such  sentiments  should  be  attributed 
to  any  of  the  clergy  of  their  Church ;  and  from  remarks  made  soon, 
after,  we  inferred  that  the  justness  of  our  quotations  was  seriously  ques- 
tioned. It  becomes  us,  therefore,  to  be  plain  on  this  point  now.  We 
shall  accordingly,  in  this  chapter,  give  a  few  specimens  of  the  charit- 
able regard  which  prelatists  in  the  exuberant  goodness  of  their  hearts, 
entertain  for  the  ministry  and  people  of  other  denominations. 

We  shall  begin  with  Bishop  Otey.  He  has  a  section  entitled,  "  The- 
attitude  of  the  Church  towards  others."*  Under  this  head  he  says  :  "I 
have  thought  it  the  more  necessary  to  dwell  upon  this  part  of  the  subject' 
because  of  the  misapprehension  and  prejudice,  not  to  say  misrepresenta- 
tion, which  I  know  to  abound  in  the  community,  lespecting  the  Church, 
and  the  position  which  she  occupies  towards  the  various  religious  profes- 
sions around  us.  The  Church  utters  no  denunciations  against  others  whoj 
through  faith  and  repentance,  are  striving,  however  misguidedly  in  some 
things,  after  the  crown  of  life.  She  takes  her  stand  on  general  princi- 
ple*, which  may  be  known  and  read  of  all  men,  and  in  the  setting  forth 
of  these,  the  plainness  and  simplicity  of  her  language  are  equalled  only 
by  its  modesty — by  the  carefulness  with  which  she  has  guarded  her  formu- 

*  It  is  well  here  to  remark,  that  wherever  Bishop  Otey  uses  the  phraseology  "  the 
Church,"  in  these  discourses,  he  means  his  own  denomination,  the  Episcopal  Church,  or 
other  bodies,  lik«  the  Romish  Church,  who  have  in  his  estimation,  the  only  valid  minis- 
terial authority.  Wherever  in  these  discourses  he  speaks  of  Methodists,  Baptists,  Presby- 
terians, Congregationalists,  Lutherans,  «Stc.,  he  employs  some  other  phraseology,  but 
never  applies  to  them  the  favorite  appellation  of  his  own  denomination  "  the  church." 
The  reader  should  bear  this  in  mind,  in  order  to  appreciate  him  fully,  and  understand 
what  is  to  follow.  It  will  be  seen,  however,  that  Bishop  Otey  is  not  of  the  number  who 
ieny  salvation  to  all  unconnected  wiih  a  prelatical  Cliurch, 


MIRROR    OF    PRELACY.  15 

laries  from  the  expression  of  a  harsh  and  uncharitable  judgment  on  tlie 
faith  and  practice  of  others."* 

This  seems  to  be  very  charitable ;  and  were  this  all  that  appears  in 
these  discourses  on  the  point  in  question,  it  might  be  permitted  to  pass 
unnoticed,  only  exciting  in  view  of  its  manifest  incorrectness,  a  feeling 
of  compassion  for  its  author.  But,  unfortunately,  the  Bishop  is  not  con- 
sistent with  himself.  He  has  another  section  on  this  same  point,  as  fol- 
lows: "If  we  must  express  an  opinion  of  others,  it  is  this:  How  far 
the  various  bodies  of  professed  Christians  around  us,  united  under  rules 
and  regulations  for  their  government,  which  they  have  drawn  from  the 
word  of  God,  and  sanctioned  by  what  they  honestly  believe  to  be  a  just 
and  fair  interpretation  of  its  meaning — how  far  they  are  to  be  regarded 
as  churches  of  Christ,  I  shall  not  undertake  to  say.  [Yet  he  does  "un- 
dertake to  say."  Hear  him.]  I  honestly  think  it  is  a  matter  admitting 
of  serious  question.  While  I  freely  concede  that  some  of  them  preach 
the  faith  of  the  gospel,  and  that  this  faith,  wherever  received,  will  mani« 
fest,  and  does  in  them  manifest,  its  appropriate  fruits  in  righteousness"^ 
in  charity — and  in  hope — still  candor  obliges  me  to  declare,  that  in  the 
exercise  of  the  best  reason  and  judgment  which  God  has  given  me,  and 
enlightened  by  all  the  information  which  the  most  diligent  search  has  af- 
forded to  my  mind,  I  think  them  destitute  of  an  essential  feature  or 
mark  of  the  visible  Catholic  Church  of  Christ :  that  is,  a  ministry,  deriv- 
ing authority  to  act  in  the  appointments  of  religion,  from  the  Apostles. 
At  the  same  time,  I  grant  that  their  ecclesiastical  organizations  have  all 
the  force  and  obligation,  on  those  who  have  submitted  to  their  authority, 
which  the  most  solemn  vows  and  engagements  can  bring  upon  the  soul. 
Their  ordinances,  administered  by  the  ministry  which  they  have«— such 
for  example,  as  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper — are  to  those  who  receive 
them,  with  the  understanding  they  have  of  their  nature  and  obligation, 
properly  sacraments — just  as  much  so  as  an  oath  taken  before  a  private 
citizen,  instead  of  a  magistrate  or  judge,  is  binding  on  the  conscience  of 
him  who  takes  it."t 

Similar  sentiments  are  also  fairly  implied  in  what  he  says  in  the  very 
introduction  to  the  first  discourse  of  the  series  :  "  Can  any  serious  and 
reflecting  person,  however,  really  thmk  that  the  various  bodies  of  men, 
who  are  known  under  the  name  of  Churches  of  Christ,  are  verily  autho- 
rized to  act  in  his  name,  and  impart  to  others  authority  to  administer  the 
sacraments  of  his  religion  ?  Especially  can  they  so  think,  when  they 
perceive  the  practical  results  to  which  such  opinions  lead  in  the  coundess 

♦Discourses,  pp.  14,  15.  t  Discourses,  p.  74. 


16  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

divisions  in  which  the  professed  followers  of  Christ  are  now  scattered? 
in  the  bitterness  and  rancor  which  opposing  sects  exhibit  towards  each 
other?"* 

In  the  foregoing  extracts  are  matters  demanding  serious  attention.—? 
Bishop  Otey  plainly  and  directly  teaches  that  "  the  various  bodies  of 
professing  Christians  around  us,"  (that  is,  around  the  Episcopal  Church,) 
are,  in  his  judgment,  "destitute  of  an  essential  Jeature  or  mark  of  the 
visible  Catholic  (!hurch  of  Christ,"  &c.  This,  of  course,  amounts  to 
saying  that  he  does  not  regard  other  denominations  as  Churches  at  all, 
nor  as  branches  of  the  general  Church  ;  for  if  they  are  "  destitute  of  an 
essential"  characteristic  of  the  Church,  their  claim  to  be  Churches  ne- 
cessarily fails.  That  this  is  the  Bishop's  meaning  is  further  obvious  from 
his  comparing  (in  the  foregoing  extract)  the  ministers  of  other  Churches 
in  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  to  a  "private  citizen,"  who 
should  assume  the  habiliments  of  a  magistrate  for  the  purpose  of  admin- 
istering an  oath,  lie  also  compares  them  to  "  the  man  whose  little  deeds 
are  defective."!  Manifestly,  by  all  these  and  similar  comparisons  and 
illustiations,  he  would  teach  that  ministers  of  other  Churches  are  without 
authority. 

Let  the  reader  mark  these  passages  well.  When,  soon  after  Bishop 
Otey  preached  his  discourses,  it  was  charged  upon  him  as  his  sentiment, 
that  he  did  not  regard  other  denominations  as  Churches,  the  charge  was 
denied  by  some  of  his  ecclesiastical  friends.  Hut  here  it  is  nailed  to  the 
wall.  <  (ther  denominations  have  no  authorized  ministry,  and  conse- 
quently have  no  Church  organization.  For  that  reason  he  always  speaks 
of  the  Kpiscopal  Church  as  "the  Church."  Other  Churches  ecclesias- 
tically considered,  are  no  more  than  nonentities.  Now  it  is  a  small 
matter  to  tell  us  that "  the  Church  utters  no  denunciations  against  others," 
while  her  clergy  are  ever  and  anon  ringing  the  changes  upon  the  senti- 
ment that  we  are  no  Church,  have  no  ministry,  and  act  without  authority. 
"The  dagger  is  a  dagger  still,  fhough  wreatlied  with  flowers." 

If  it  is  truly  Bishop  Otey's  conscientious  belief,  that  other  denomina- 
tions have  no  claim  to  be  regarded  as  Churches  of  Christ,  we  are  quite 
willing  he  should  peacefully  enjoy  it  until  convinced  of  his  error  'I'hat 
this  is  the  sentiment  which  is  inwoven  throughout  his  entire  pamphlet — 
that  he  makes  the  attempt  to  impress  the  mind  of  his  readers  that 
Diocesan  Episcopacy  is  the  only  valid  form  of  Church  organization — 
and  that  all  denominations  who  have  not  this  form' are  without  the  pale  of 
the  Church  of  ('hrist,  no  one  will  deny  who  has  read  his  sermons. — 
What,  then,  will  the  serious  reader   think  of  any  endeavor  to  escape  the 

*  Discourses,  p.  8.  t  Discourses,  p  73. 


MIRROR    OF    PRELACY.  17 

odium  which  he  seems  to  imagine  must  fall  upon  him  for  taking  this  ex- 
clusive stand,  by  deliberately  penning  what  follows  :  "It  may  be  asked 
then,"  says  the  Bishop,  "whether,  if  the  position  we  take  upon  this  sub- 
ject be  made  good,  we  do  not  unchurch  all  other  denominations  of 
Christians,  and  leave  them  to  the  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God?  I  re-: 
ply,  in  the  first  place,  we  do  not  unchurch  them.  It  is  an  inference  which 
those  make  who,  by  a  voluntary  act  of  their  own,  have  separated  them- 
selves from  that  order  of  the  Gospel  which  we  have  endeavored  to  prove 
was  established  in  the  primitive  Church.  It  is,  therefore,  unjust  and  un- 
generous to  charge  us  with  consequences  which  do  not  flow  from  any 
act  of  ours,  but  which  are  the  legitimate  results  of  their  own  deliberate 
proceedings."* 

7  his  is  pitiful  shuffling.  It  is  almost  beneath  notice.  And  we  are  not 
sure  but  it  may  be  descending  too  much  to  notice  it  at  all  seriously.  But 
as  it  conies  from  one  whose  office  is  sacred,  we  shall  give  it  a  passing 
consideration. 

As  was  just  remarked,  the  drift  of  all  these  discourses  is  to  show  that 
Diocesan  Episcopacy  is  the  only  authorized  form  of  Church  government, 
and  "  essential'  to  the  Church's  existence,  and  consequently  that  the 
Congregational,  Presbyterian,  Methodist,  Baptist,  Lutheran,  and  other 
Churches  have  no  part  or  lot  with  the  Church  of  Christ.  Bishop  Otey 
then  supposes  that  some  one  may  ask,  "  If  these  are  your  views,  do  you 
not  unchurch  all  other  denominations  ?"  This  is  a  natural  inquiry. 
The  Bishop  evidently  regarded  it  as  such,  or  he  would  not  have  intro- 
duced it.  But  how  does  he  answer  it  ?  While  he  seems  to  meet  it  bold- 
ly, and  to  answer  it  with  a  decided  negative,  he  really  dodges  the  very 
pith  and  point  at  issue.  His  answer  amounts  to  this  :  "  No  !  we  do  not 
unchurch  them,  they  unchurch  themselves !"  This,  we  repeat,  is  most 
egregious  trifling.  What  is  the  natural  and  popular  meaning  of  this 
question  ?  Is  it  whether,  by  some  ecclesiastical  edict — (some  "  act  of 
ours,"  of  which  the  Bishop  speaks) — other  denominations  are  cast  out 
from  the  ('hurch  ?"  Bishop  Otey  knows  that  this  is  not  its  meaning. 
No  man  would  trouble  the  worthy  Prelate  with  such  a  question ;  for, 
thanks  be  to  kind  Heaven,  other  denominations  are  not  within  the  juris- 
diction of  "//te  Church,"  so  as  to  render  such  a  step  possible.  What, 
then,  is  the  natural,  popular,  and  in  this  connection,  only  meaning  of  the 
term  "  unchurch,"  in  the  mouth  of  one  who  might  address  the  Bishop 
under  the  circumstances  supposed?  It  is  this:  "  How,  sir,  upon  the 
principles  you  advocate,  do  you  regard  all  other  denominations  ?  Are 
they  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  or  out  of  it?    Do  they  form  a  part  of  it, 

•Discourses,  p.  71 


18  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

or  no  part  of  it  ?  What  is  your  judgment  in  the  case  ?"  This  is  the 
only  consistent  interpretation  which  the  question  will  admit.  And  yet,  the 
Bishop  dodges  it,  and  gives  an  answer  which  directly  conflicts  with  the 
fair  meaning  of  his  discourses,  so  far  as  they  bear  upon  the  relation  of  the 
Episcopal  to  other  Christian  denominations. 

We  will  now  show  the  light  in  which  some  other  Episcopal  writers 
regard  other  denominations  and  their  ministers.  But  we  must  in  the  first 
place,  upon  this  point,  settle  a  small  account  with  the  "  Bishop  of  Ten- 
nessee."* He  says  in  the  extract  already  given :  "  The  Church  utters  no 
denunciations  against  others,"  &c.  But  whom  does  he  mean  by  "  the 
Church?"  lie  replies  as  follows:  "Are  we  asked  what  is  the  Church? 
The  19th  Article  replies :  <  The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  a  congrega- 
tion of  faithful  men,  in  the  which  the  pure  word  of  God  is  preached  and 
the  sacraments  be  duly  administered  according  to  Christ's  ordinance,  in 
all  those  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the  same.'  "t  According 
to  this,  "  the  Church  '*  is  a  "  congregation  of  faithful  men,"  &c.  Now 
says  the  Bishop,  "The  Church  utters  no  denunciations  against  others  !!" 
Well,  we  shall  soon  see  whether  the  "Bishop  of  Tennessee"  is  right  or 
not.  It  will  not  do  as  an  escape  here,  to  tell  us  of  "the  carefulness  with 
which  she  has  guarded  her  formularies  irom  the  expression  of  a  harsh 
and  uncharitable  judgment  on  the  laith  and  practice  of  others."  If  we 
would  know  whether  the  judgment  of  "  the  Church  "  be  "harsh  and  un- 
charitable," we  must  seek  for  the  expression  of  that  judgment,  not  in 
*'  her  formularies,"  but  rather  in  the  writings  of  the  great  "  congregation 
of  faithftd  men"  who  are  regarded  by  "the  Church"  as  standard  authors, 
and  who  are  reverenced  as  oracles.  If  a  large  and  influential  body  of  the 
Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  as  well  as  many 
among  the  laity,  judge  other  Churches  so  harshly  as  to  deem  them  no 
Churches,  their  ministers  no  ministers,  acting  without  authority,  "whose 
title-deeds  are  defective,"  administering  no  valid  ordinances,  opposing  the 
will  of  Heaven — if  these  '■'■faithful  men"  are  so  numerous  as  to  give 
character  to  the  press,  and  to  the  public  sentiment  of  that  Church,  as  they 

*  By  the  by,  "Bisliop  of  Tennessee,''''  vvhai  does  this  mean  ?  Does  Bishop  Otey,  upon 
the  ground  of  not  recognizing  any  but  a  prelatical  Church,  claim  jurisdiction  over  the 
entire  State  of  Tennessee  ?  The  Pope  claims  universal  authority  over  the  world,  tem- 
poral and  spiritual;  but  the  terms  expressive  ot  it  need  be  no  more  comprehensive  than 
those  by  which  Bishop  Otey  indicates  his  spiritual  authority  in  Tennessee.  Would  he 
really  subject  all  to  his  ecclesiastical  sceptre  ?  We  do  not  think  the  gallant  Tennessee- 
ana  will  consider  themselves  complimented  by  this.  The  late  excellent  Bishop  White 
was  accustomed  to  subscribe  himself  as  he  truly  was — "  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
eopal  Church,  in  the  commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania."  Modesty  is  sometimes  worthy 
of  imitation. 

t  Discourses,  p.  l.=>. 


MIRROR    OF    PRELACY.  19 

beyond  controversy  are  at  this  moment — their  "judgment,"  thus  express- 
ed, must  be  taken  as  the  embodied  judgment  of  "  the  Church."  And 
further,  if  a  class  in  this  "  congregation  of  faithful  men,'*  embracing  Bi- 
shops and  other  clergy,  and  some  of  the  laity — by  no  means  contempti- 
ble in  numbers  or  ability — pronounce  other  Churches  besides  their  own 
to  be  "  no  Churches,"  but  "  withered  branches," — their  ministers  "  pre- 
tended ministers,"  guilty  of  "presumption  and  daring  imposture,''  "  self- 
appointed  teachers,"  "  dissenting  mi  untebanks,"  and  those  who  "  pretend 
to  be  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  and  are  really  ministers  oj  hell,'''' — if 
these  "  faithtul  men"  declare  that  "  it  is  utterly  unlawful  to  attend  our 
ministry,"  and  to  hear  us  "is  rebellion  against  God," — that  our  "baptism 
is  a  mockery,  which  many  sprinkle  with  water  on  earth,  but  cannot  ad- 
mit souls  to  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven," — if  all  this,  we  say,  (which  shall 
be  proven  in  due  time,)  and  much  more  of  the  same  purport,  be  uttered 
and  reiterated  from  pulpit  and  press,  from  Dan  to  Beersheba,  by  many  in 
this  "  congregation  of  faithful  men,"  whom  "fAe  Church"  delights  to 
honor, — we  leave  it  to  the  reader's  good  sense  to  say,  whether  or  not 
such  a  judgment  be  really  "  harsh  and  uncharitable,"  and  whether  the 
worthy  "  lUshop  of  Tennessee  "  is  happy  in  snying  "  the  Church  utters 
no  denunciations  against  others."  Surely  the  Bishop  must  sorely  dislike 
an  unwelcome  truth,  or  must  be  grievously  ignorant  of  the  sayings  and 
doings  within  the  pale  of  "  the  Church.'' 

But  we  will  detain  the  reader  no  longer  from  a  taste  of  the  precious 
fruits  which  have  ripened  on  this  prelatical  tree. 

We  pass  by,  for  the  present,  all  the  arrogant  assumptions  that  Prelacy, 
or  a  ministry  in  three  orders,  of  Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons,  is  the  only 
valid  form  of  Church  organization.  This  is  insisted  on  almost  universal- 
ly by  prelatical  writers.  Our  present  concern  is,  to  know  the  opinion 
they  entertain  of  ourselves,  our  orders,  our  ecclesiastical  position,  our 
hopes  for  another  world.  On  all  these  points  they  speak  in  language 
which  cannot  be  mistaken.     Let  us  hear  them. 

I.  Many  advocates  of  Prelacy  consign  us,  and  the  people  of  out 
ehaiges,  to  eternal  perdition. 

Dr.  Dodwell,  a  Church  of  England  divine,  declares:  *^ None  but  the 
Bishop  can  unite  us  to  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Whence,  it  will  further 
follow,  that  whoever  are  disunited  from  the  visible  communion  of  the 
Church  on  earth,  and  particularly  from  that  visible  communion  of  the 
Bishop  must  consequently  be  disunited  from  the  whole  visible  Catholic 
Church  on  earth ;  and  not  only  so,  but  from  the  invisible  communion  of 
the  holy  angels  and  saints  in  Heaven;  and,  which  is  yet  more,  from 
Christ  and  God  himself  I    It  is  one  of  the  most  dreadful  aggravations  of 


20  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

the  condition  of  the  damned,  tliat  they  are  '  banished  from  the  presencV  of 
the  I.ord,  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power.'  The  same  is  their  condi- 
tion, ALSO,  WHO  ARE    DISUNITED  FROM  ChRIST  BY  BEING  DISUNITED  FROM 

Hi*  VISIBLE  REPRESENTATIVE  " — the  Bishop !  !  * 

Mr.  Perceval,  Chaplain  to  Queen  Victoria,  says  :  "  From  the  Apostles' 
times  downward  to  those  troublous  ones  which  formed  the  era  of  the  Re- 
formation, no  instance  can  be  clearly  adduced  of  any  one  single  body  of 
Christians,  in  which  persons  were  received  as  ministers  of  religion,  who 
had  not  Episcopal  ordination.  During  all  that  period  none  dared 
TO  HAZARD  THEIR  SALVATION  upon  any  Other  scheme  of  Christian 
ministry. ^^\ 

Bishop  Taylor,  of  the  Church  of  England,  says :  "  Without  the  offices 
of  Episcopacy,  no  ordination,  no  consecration  of  the  sacrament,  no  abso- 
lution, no  rite,  or  sacrament,  legitimately  can  be  performed  in  order  to 
eternity."! 

The  Oxford  Tractists  say :  '^Christ  has  appointed  thb  Church  a» 
the  only  way  unto  eternal  life.  Christ  never  appointed  two  ways  to 
Heaven;  nor  did  he  build  a  Church  to  save  some,  and  make  another  in- 
stitution for  other  men's  salvation.  '  There  is  no  other  name  given  under 
Heaven  whereby  we  must  be  saved  but  the  name  of  Jesus,'  and  that  is 
no  otherwise  given  under  Heaven  than  in  the  Church."  §  The  bear- 
ing of  this  will  be  understood,  when  we  keep  in  mind  that  these  writers 
always  use  the  words  "  the  Church  "  in  the  same  sense  that  Bishop  Otey 
does,  to  mean  only  that  portion  of  it  which  has  the  prelatical  form  of 
government.  The  "  Oxford  Tracts  "  have  been  re-published,  and  exten- 
sively circulated  in  this  country,  with  the  sanction  of  many  of  the  "Bi- 
shops and  other  clergy  ''  of  "  the  Church." 

The  same  writers  say :  "  A  person  not  commissioned  from  the  Bishop 
may  use  the  words  of  baptism,  and  sprinkle  or  bathe  with  the  water  on 
earth,  but  there  is  no  promise  from  Christ  that  such  a  man  shall  admit 
souls  to  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  A  person  not  commissioned  (from  the 
Bishop)  may  break  bread  and  pour  out  wine,  and  pretend  to  give  the 
Lord's  Supper,  but  it  can  afford  no  comfort  to  any  to  receive  it  at  his 
hands,  because  there  is  no  warrant  from  Christ  to  lead  communicants  to 
suppose,  that  while  he  does  so  here  on  earth,  they  will  be  partakers  of 
His  heavenly  body  and  blood.    And  as  for  the  person  himself  who  takes 

*"  One  Altar  and  one  Priesthood."  This  passage  from  Dr.  Dodvvell  is  copied,  with 
approbation,  into  the  "  Churchman,"  a  paper  published  in  New-York,  under  the  patron- 
age and  control  of  Bishop  Onderdonk,  of  that  Diocese,  and  circulated  extensively 
throughout  the  United  States. 

t"  Apology  lor  the  Doctrine  of  Apostolical  Succession." 

t"  Episcopacy  Asserted."  ^  Vol.  i,  p.  361. 


MIliilOR    OF    PRELACY.  ^1 

upon  himself,  tvithout  ivarrant,  to  minister  in  holy  things,  lie  is  all  the 
while  treading  in  the  footsteps  of  Korah,  Dathan  and  Abiram,  whose 
awful  punishment  you  may  read  of  in  the  book  of  Numbers,  16th  chap- 
ter, which  compare  with  Jude,  2."* 

Dr.  Hook,  at  present  Vicar  of  Leeds,  England,  says  :  "  You  will  ob- 
serve how  important  all  this  is  which  I  have  now  laid  before  you.  Un- 
less Christ  be  spiritually  present  with  the  ministers  of  religion  in  their 
services,  those  services  will  be  vain.  [Nothing  more  Scriptural.]  But 
the  only  ministrations  to  tvhich  he  has  promised  his  presence,  is  to 
those  of  the  Bishops  [of  "  the  Church,"  of  course,]  who  are  su  cessora 
of  the  first  commissioned  jSpostles,  and  the  other  clergy  acting  under 
their  sanction,  and  by  their  authority. ^^i 

Dr.  {Sherlock,  of  the  English  Church,  in  a  work  published  in  1662, 
makes  the  following  affirmation :  "  Whoever  separates  himself  from 
the  Church  of  England,  cuts  himself  off  from,  the  Catholic  Church, 
and  PUTS  himself  out  of  a  state  of  salvatiov.  Separation  from  the 
Church  of  England  is  a  schism,  and  a  schism  is  as  damning  a  sin  as 
idolairy,  drunkenness,  or  adultery,"! 

So  much  for  the  opinion  and  charity  of  Church  of  England  Divines  on 
the  single  point  of  our  hope  of  salvation,  while  out  of  a  prelatical  Church. 
Similar  quotations  might  be  multiplied  indefinitely.  Now  let  us  see  if 
we  can  find  any  more  favor  on  this  point  with  Episcopal  Divines  of  our 
own  happy  land. 

Bishop  Onderdonk,  of  New-York,  says  :  «'  None  hut  the  Bishop  can 
unite  us  to  the  Father,  in  the  way  of  Christ'' s  appointment ;  and  these 
Bishops  must  be  such  as  receive  their  mission  from  the  first  commissioned 
Apostles.  Wherever  such  Bishops  are  found,  dispensing  the  faith  and 
sacraments  of  Christ,  there  is  a  true  Church — unsound  it  may  be,  like 
the  Church  of  Rome,  but  still  a  true  and  real  Church. "§ 

Bishop  McCoskry,  of  Michigan,  in  maintaining  the  doctrine  that  the 
ministers  of  a  Prelatical  Church  are  the  only  authorized  ambassadors  of 
Christ,  says  :  "  And  especially  are  they  (the  clergy)  to  tell  men  that  it  is 
only  through  this  ministry  that  j)o,i'don  and  acceptance  with  God  can 
be  made  known."  || 

The  late  Bishop  Hobart,  of  New-York,  writes:  "  What  ia^the  judg- 
ment of  Scripture  and  the  primitive  writers  concerning  the  sin  of  schism  ? 

♦  Oxford  Tracts,  No.  33, 

t Sermon  before  the  Queen,  entitled  "Hear  the  Church." 
J  "Continuation  and  Vindication  of  the  Defence  of  Dr.  SiillingHeet,"  p.  339. 
$  Works  on  Episcopacy. 

II Sermon  entitled  "Episcopal  Bishops,  the  Successors  of  the  Apostles." 

D 


22  PRELACY    EXA3IINED. 

From  the  writings  of  St.  Paul  it  may  be  collected  that  he  considers 
schism  as  a  carnal  sin,  and  that  this  sin  consists  in  a  separation  from  tlie 
communion  of  the  Church,  and  a  setting  up  of  teachers  independent  of 
its  government  and  destructive  of  its  unity.  In  the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude, 
mention  is  made  of  those  who  '  perished  in  the  gainsaying  of  Core.' — 
There  is,  therefore,  a  siii  in  the  Christian  Church  answering  to  that 
of  Korah  in  the  Jewish.  His  sin  consisted  in  his  rebelling  against 
the  order  of  government  established  in  that  Church,  of  which  he  was  an 
inferior  minister.  The  sin  of  Christians,  therefore,  corresponding  to 
that  of  Korah,  consists  in  their  rebellion  against  that  government  by 
Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons,  which  Christ  and  his  Apostles  instituted 
in  the  Church.  The  uniform  testimony  of  all  the  apostolic  and  primi- 
tive writers,  establishes  the  general  conclusion,  that  whoever  was  in 
communion  with  the  Bishop,  the  supreme  governor  of  the  Church  upon 
earth,  was  in  communion  with  Christ  the  head  of  it ;  and  whoever  was 
not  in  communion  with  the  Bishop,  was  thereby  cut  off  from  com- 
munion WITH  Christ  ;  and  that  sacraments  not  administered  by  the  Bi- 
shop, or  those  commissioned  by  him,  were  not  only  ineffectual  to 
THE  PARTiFS,  but  morcovcr  like  the  offerings  of  Korah,  provocations 

AGAINST  THE  LoRD."* 

Says  the  same  writer :  "  We  are  bound  to  preserve  the  unity  of  the 
Church,  and  therefore  to  adhere  to  the  government  of  the  Church  by 
Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons,  by  which  government  the  visible 
Church  of  Christ  is  known.  The  important  principle  should  ever  be 
kept  in  view,  that  the  unity  of  the  Church  is  broken,  and  the  benefits  of 
Church  communion  forfeited,  when  we  separate  from  that  priesthood 
which  was  constituted  by  Ciirist  as  the  essential  characteristic  of  his 
Church,  the  channel  through  which  the  blessings  of  his  redemp- 
tion AR"""  TO  RE  conveyed  TO  MrN."t 

Fault  was  found  last  Spring,  that  Bishop  Hobart  was  represented  as 
teaching  that  connection  with  the  Episcopal  Church  was  essential  to  sal- 
vation ;  and  the  allegation  brought  against  him  was  confidently  denied. 
The  above  extracts  would  seem  to  place  the  matter  beyond  question,  and 
to  prove  clearly  that  his  writings  do  teach  the  abhorrent  and  abhorred 
doctrine.  But  "  to  make  assurance  doubly  sure,"  we  will  cite  one  pass- 
age more  from  this  same  high  Church  oracle. 

lie  says  :  "  On  what  is  the  obligation  of  communion  with  the  Church 
founded  ?  The  obligation  of  communion  with  the  (Jhristian  Church  is 
founded  on  its  being  a  society  established  by  God,  to  which  He  has  an- 

•  "Companioa  tor  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,"  &c.,  pp.  58,  59. 
tibid.p.  60,      , 


MIRROR    OF    PRELACY.  23 

nexed  ALL  the  privilegps  and  blessings  of  the  Go?;pel  covenant. — - 
Of  course,  in  order  to  partake  of  ti.ese  privileges  and  blessings,  we  must 
be  admitted  into  the  Christian  Church,  and  maintain  communion  with  it."* 

Now,  the  only  point  to  be  determined  is — what  does  Bishop  Ilobart 
mean  by  "the  Church,"  in  the  above  passage?  'J  his  is  answered  by 
referring  to  the  extracts  already  given.  He  means  that  branch  of  the 
general  Church,  and  that  only,  which  has  a  ministry  in  the  three  orders 
of  "  Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons,"—"  that  prirsthood  which  was  con- 
stituted by  Christ  as  the  essential  characteristic  of  His  Church."  Now, 
if  to  this  particular  Church,  thus  evidenced  to  the  world  by  her  "three 
orders,"  "  God  has  annexed  all  the  privileges  and  blessings  of  the 
Gospel  covenant,''^  it  follows,  irresistiby,  that  He  "  has  annexed"  eternal 
salvation,  for  this  is  the  chief  "  blessing  of  the  Gospel  covenant ;"  and 
also  it  follows  from  these  premises,  that  those  Churches  which  liave  not 
these  "  three  orders  "  of  the  ministry,  riave  no  share  in  any  of  the  "  bless- 
ings of  the  Gospel  covenant,"  and,  consequently,  have  no  part  nor  lot  in 
the  "great  salvation."  They  are  thus  in  the  charitable  judgment  of  this 
reverend  Prelate  summarily  consigned  to  eternal  damnation  ! 

So  much  for  the  teaching  of  American  Prelates.  They  stand  "  not  a 
whit  behind  the  cliiefest"  of  their  transatlantic  brethren. 

Now  there  is  one  characteristic  running  through  all  these  quotations 
from  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  which  we  do  most  heartily  admire.  Not- 
withstanding the  sentiments  here  avowed  are  shocking  to  every  moral 
feeling,  if  not  absolutely  blasphemous,  yet  there  is  at  least  one  quality 
which  deserves  commendation — their  boldness,  tlieir  candor.  It  is 
always  desirable  when  you  are  obliged  to  meet  an  opponeiU,  to  know  just 
where  to  find  him.  It  is  unpleasant  to  be  left  to  seek  out  his  opinions  by 
inference,  or  conjecture,  or  from  a  long  and  wire-drawn  conclusion. 
That  is  not  the  case  here.  There  is  no  shuffling  in  these  men.  They 
come  out  bravely  with  the  doctrine,  that  communion  ivith  a prelaiical 
Church  is  the  indispensable  condition  of  salua'ion;  and  we  thank  them 
for  this  bold  and  candid  avowal  of  it. 

It  would  seem  to  be  almost  unnecessary  to  trouble  the  reader  further 
with  enquiries  into  the  opinions  of  Prelalists  concerning  our  ecclesiastical 
standing,  while  they,  with  so  little  ceremony,  cast  us  all,  ministers  and 
people,  not  only  out  of  the  Church  of  God  on  earth,  but  (  ut  of  the  king- 
dom of  Heaven.     But  it  may  be  \ycll  to  look  at  one  or  two  points  more. 

II.  Many  in  this  "  congregation  of  fuilhful  mcn,''^  not  only  cast  tis 
out  of  the  Idngdom  of  H.aven,  but  deny  us  any  ministerial  authority, 
and  warn  the  people  against  attending  on  our  ministry. 

*  "  Companion  for  ihc  Festivals  nnd  Fast*,""  p.  ."».=>. 


24  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

«*  Christ  and  his  holy  Apostles,''  says  Mr.  Barwick,  of  Trinity  Col- 
lege, Dublin,  "instituted  but  one  form  of  Church  government  and 
communion,  and  confined  the  covenanted  means  of  salvation  to  the  living 
members  of  this  one  communion,  and  to  none  other.  We  must  recollect, 
that  tliose  prelended  ministers  who  officiate  in  the  meetings  of  Presby- 
terians, Methodists,  &c.,  have  not  been  ordained  by  Bishops.  And  con- 
sequently, as  I  have  already  demonstrated,  these  men  have  not  been  sent 
by  God ;  and,  therefore,  it  must  be  utterly  unlawful  to  attend  their 
ministry.  For,  '  how  can  we  liear  without  a  preacher,  and  how  can  they 
preach  except  they  be  sent?'  The  Lord  forbids  us  to  hear  them,  because 
•  He  hath  not  sent  them,  and  therefore,  they  shall  not  profit  this  people' 
To  hear,  then,  in  such  a  case,  is  rebellion  against  God,  and  utterly  un- 
lawful, and  is  countenancing  them  in  th-ir  presumption  and  daring  im- 
posture. The  case  being  thus,  the  non-entity  of  these  unhappy  people's 
Church  appears  upon  a  double  ;iccount ;  first,  as  wanting  a  ministry, 
and  second,  as  wanting  the  due  preaching  of  the  pure  word,  and  right  ad- 
ministration of  the  sacraments.  So  that  the  difference  between  us  and 
this  people,  as  already  considered,  is  a  ministry  and  no  ministry,  a 
Church  and  no  Church."* 

Hear  another  apologist  for  Prelacy  :  "  Whereas,  in  ihe private  meet- 
ings, where  their  teachers  have  no  Apostolical  or  Episcopal  imposition  of 
hands,  they  have  no  ground  to  succeed  the  Apostles,  nor  by  consequence 
any  right  to  the  spirit  which  our  Lord  hath;  without  which,  although 
they  preach  tlieir  hearts  out,  I  do  not  see  what  spiritual  advantage  can 
accrue  to  their  hearers  by  z7."t 

In  a  debate  which  occurred  in  the  House  of  Lords,  7th  April,  1840, 
the  Bishop  of  Exeter  declared,  that  "  as  to  the  Presbyterian  establish- 
ment of  Scotland  he  would  not  call  them  a  Church,"  and  that  "it  was 
wrong  to  use  the  expression — the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  Scotland." 

Says  another  high  Church  writer,  in  reply  to  an  opponent:  "You 
seem  to  consider  that  the  Episcopal  foim  is  the  last  thing  in  the  idea  of 
a  Church,  and  therefore  that  a  Presbyterian  or  Lidependent  body  may  be 
considered  an  imperfect  sort  of  Episcopacy.  Imperfect !  Is  a  mouse  an 
imperfect  kind  of  bat  ?  Is  it  a  bat  all  but  the  wings?  Could  we  sew 
wings  on  it,  and  make  it  a  bat?     Did   all   the  swellings  of  an  ambitious 

*  Preface  to  "  Treatise  on  the  Cluirch,"  as  quoted  in  "  Plea  of  Presbytery,"  by  divines 
of  the  Synod  of  Ulster.  "  la  addition  to  this,"  say  these  same  divines,  "  the  Canons  of 
the  Church  of  Ireland  excommunicatr  not  only  oi!  who  do  not  belong  to  her  com- 
munion, but  all  who  will  dare  to  siy  that  there  is  any  other  true  and  lawful  Church  ia 
the  kingdom  '.'"—Sec  tlf  llh  Canon. 

f  Sermon  on  Christ "s  presence  with  his  ministers,  by  Uishop  Deveridge. 


MIRROR    OF    PRELACY.  25 

heart  develop  the  frog  into  a  bull  ?  So  is  it  with  Independency  or  Pres- 
byterianism,  viewed  in  themselves;  as  forms,  they  are  as  distinct  from  the 
Church  as  one  kind  of  flesh  is  from  another." 

"  To  call  (  urselves  Episcopalians,"  says  the  same  writer,  "is  to  imply 
that  we  (lifl^er  from  the  mass  of  the  dissenters  mainly  in  Church  govern- 
ment and  form,  in  a  matter  of  doctrine  merely,  not  of  fact;  whereas,  the 
difference  is,  that  we  are  here,  and  they  there  ;  we  in  the  Church, 

AND  THEY  OUT  OF  IT."* 

Says  the  celebrated  Palmer,  a  Church  of  England  divine,  when  speak- 
ing of  dissenters  generally:  "  Of  these  communities,  whether  collectively 
or  individually  considered,  I  affirm,  that  they  are  no  part  of  the 
Chtjsch  of  Christ.  They  and  their  generations  are  as  the  heathen  ; 
and  though  we  may  have  reason  to  believe  that  many  of  their  descend- 
ants are  not  obstinate  in  their  errors,  still  it  seems  to  me  that  we  are  not 
warranted  in  affirming  absolutely  that  they  can  be  saved.^''^ 

We  might  multiply  similar  quotations  from  Church  of  England  writers 
to  almost  any  extent ;  but  these  are  sufficient.  We  will  give  one  or  two 
specimens  from  American  Episcopal  divines. 

The  first  is  from  the  late  Bishop  Ilobart,  of  New-York  :  "  We  can  no 
more  lay  aside  Episcopacy,  and  yet  continue  the  Christian  priesthood, 
than  we  can  alter  the  terms  of  salvation,  and  yet  be  in  covenant  with 
God."  Again  :  "  It  is  only  through  a  succession  of  Bishops,  as  distinct 
from,  and  superior  to.  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  that  authority  to  exercise 
the  ministry  can  be  derived  from  the  Divine  Head  of  the  Church."  Ac- 
cording to  this  same  writer,  none  but  "  Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons '' 
are  authorized  even  to  offer  trayfr  in  public.  He  asks  :  "  By  whom 
is  public  prayer  to  be  performed  ?"  He  answers — "  In  secret,  every  man 
is  his  own  orator ;  and  in  private  families,  performance  of  divine  wor- 
ship is  incumbent  on  them  to  whom  the  care  and  government  of  the 
family  belong ;  but  in  the  public  congregation  of  Christians,  divine  Avor- 
ship  must  be  celebrated  only  by  those  to  whom  it  has  pleased  God  to 
commit  this  office.  The  presenting  of  the  people's  prayer  to  God,  and 
interceding  with  Him  to  bless  them,  has  always  been  reckoned  an  essen- 
tial part  of  the  sacerdotal  office," — that  is,  of  the  office  exercised  only 
by  "  Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons. "J 

Listen,  now,  to  the  following  warning  to  the  people  of  other  Churches, 
from  this  same  renowned  Prelate  :  "  Great  is  the  guilt,  and  imminent 
the  danger  of  those  who,  possessing  the  means  of  arriving  at  the  know- 

*  British  Critic,  tiie  organ  of  the  High  Church  parly  in  the  English  Establishment. 

t  Treatise  on  the  Church. 

t  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,  pp.  35,  36,  37. 


26  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

ledge  of  the  truth,  negligently  or  wilfully  continue  in  a  state  of  separa- 
tion from  the  authorized  ministry  of  the  Church,  and  participate  of  or- 
dinances administered  by  an  irregular  and  invalid  authority.  IVilfully 
rending  the  peace  and  unify  of  the  Church,  by  separating  from  the 
ministrations  of  its  authorized  priesthood,  and  contemning  the  means 
which  God  in  his  sovereign  pleasure  hath  prescribed  for  their  salvation ; 
they  are  guilty  of  rebellion  against  their  Almighty  Lawgiver  and 
Judge;  they  expose  themselves  to  the  awful  displeasure  of  that  Almighty 
Jehovah,  who  will  not  pormit  His  institutions  to  be  contemned,  or  His 
authority  violated  with  impunity."* 

The  late  Bishop  Ravenscroft,  of  North  Carolina,  asks  :  "What  Pres- 
byterian or  other  dissenter  will  risk  the  purchase  of  property  from  a  dis- 
tant owner,  by  power  of  attorney,  upon  the  mere  assertion  oj  the  agent, 
that  he  is  empowered  to  convey  the  titles  ?  Know  you  of  any  who 
would  not  require  to  see  the  attorney,  that  it  was  in  due  form  of  law, 
and  such  as  would  bind  the  principal,  before  he  paid  the  price,  or  even 
became  bound  for  it  ?  And  know  you  not  of  thousands  who  bargain  for 
the  rich  inheritance  of  the  Gospel,  for  themselves  and  their  families, 
without  the  slightest  security  beyond  the  mere  say-so  of  the  agent  ? 
Alas !  how  very  true  are  our  Saviours  words,  that  '  the  children  of  this 
world  are,  in  their  generation,  wiser  than  the  children  of  light.'  Epis- 
copalians present  these  doctrines  to  their  hearers,  in  the  full  persuasion, 
that  the  Church,  the  ministry,  and  the  sacraments,  are  as  distinctly  and 
truly  appointments  of  God,  in  order  to  the  salvation  of  sinners,  as  the 
FAITH  OF  THE  GosPEL ;  and  that  only  as  these  are  united  in  the  profes- 
sion of  religion,  can  the  hope  thereby  given  to  man,  be  worthy  of  the 
name  of  assurance. ''t 

Says  Dr.  How:  «' Of  this  Church," — that  is,  the  Church  instituted 
in  three  orders  of  the  ministry — "  all  men  are  commanded  to  become 
members.  In  refusing  to  become  members  of  it,  therefore,  they  violate 
thelaivsof  God.^^  "  Wilful  opposition  to  Episcopacy,  is  certainly  rebel- 
lion against  God,  and  must,  therefore,  exclude  from  his  presence." — 
"  In  short,  your  opponents  say  that  wilful  rejection  of  Episcopacy  will 
exclude  from  the  kingdom  of  Heaven."^ 

The  "  Banner  of  the  Cross,"  a  leading  Episcopal  paper,  published  in 
Philadelphia,  in  speaking  of  a  sentence  in  a  certain  Episcopal  publica- 
tion, which  was  too  liberal  for  the  editor,  holds  the  following  language- 
mild,  indeed,  compared  with  much  that  appears  in  the  same  print.  The 
italics  are  the  editor's:  — 

*  Hobart's  "  Companion  for  the  Altar." 

t  Vindication  and  Defence.  J  Vindication  of  the  Church. 


MIRROR    OF    PRELACY.  27 

•«  This  looks  a  Utile  like  the  fanciful  distinction  between  being  and  per- 
Jection.  If  the  ministry  is  essential  to  the  Church,  and  if  God  has  es- 
tablished only  one  form  of  the  ministry — the  inference  with  respect  to 
those  societies  which  have  presumed  to  adopt  another  form,  is,  we  should 
think,  too  obvious  to  be  denied,  at  least  by  any  churchman.  Can  there 
be  a  medium  between  validity  and  invalidity  ?"* 

These  extracts  must  suffice,  as  samples  of  that  exclusive,  arrogant, 
and  intolerant  spirit,  with  which  a  vast  number  in  the  high  ranks  of 
Prelacy  seem  so  thoroughly  imbued.  They  might  be  multiplied  suffi- 
ciently to  fill  a  volume.  At  the  present  moment  the  Episcopal  press,  both 
of  England  and  the  United  States,  teems  with  denunciations  of  all  other 
denominations,  as  having  no  ministry,  no  Church  organization,  no  sacra- 
ments,, no  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  by  necessary  consequence,  (by 
some  directly  and  unqualifiedly  taught,)  no  salvation! — while  they,  and 
"  our  mother  of  Rome,"  so  highly  favored  with  a  ministry  in  "  three 
orders,"  have  and  alone  enjoy,  all  the  means  of  grace,  "  all  the  pri- 
vileges and  blessings  of  the  Gospel  covenant,"  and  all  the  hope  of  an 
inheritance  beyond  the  skies  ! 

In  closing  this  introductory  chapter,  we  submit  two  questions  to  the 
reader.  The  first  is — can  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee"  be  justified  in 
saying,  "The  Church  utters  no  denunciations  against  others?"  The 
foregoing  pages  furnish  the  answer.  'I  he  views  which  have  been  pre- 
sented in  these  extracts  are  not  confined  to  a  few,  here  and  there,  but 
they  exhibit  fairly,  the  public  sentiment  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  as 
gathered  from  the  writings  of  a  large  body  of  her  clergy.  Some,  we  are 
happy  to  say,  abhor  and  dissent  from  such  exclusiveness  ;  and  as  to  the 
one  point  ol  denying  salvation  to  all  out  of  "  the  Church,"  few,  we  pre- 
sume, would  be  found,  who  have  the  boldness  and  candor  to  avow  it  in 
direct  terms,  though  it  flows  by  natural  consequence  from  the  tenet 
which,  perhaps,  ninety-nine  hundredths  of  the  clergy  hold,  that  they  are 
the  only  Church,  and  have  the  only  ministry  and  ordinances  of  the 
Gospel. 

The  other  question  is — do  not  the  views  here  presented  of  our  minis- 
terial standing  and  hopes  for  another  world,  justify  us  in  attempting  to 
vindicate — nay,  lay  us  under  the  imperious  necessity  of  vindicating — our 
claim  to  be  regarded  as  ministers  of  the  Gospel  ?  We  do  not  seek  this 
controversy.  We  engage  in  it  with  reluctance.  We  deprecate  nothing 
so  much,  as  the  industrious  promulgation  of  opinions,  (and  carrying 
them  out  in  practice,)  which  are  only  calculated  to  divide  the  followers 
of  the  Redeemer.  But  we  know  nothing  which  more  directly  tends  to 
•  Faper  ot  May  6.  1843. 


28  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

this  than  the  course  taken  by  many  in  high  places  in  the  Episcopal 
Church  at  the  present  day,  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee"  not  excepted. 
We  are,  by  these  high  dignitaries,  without  ceremony,  unchurched,  Bi- 
shop Otey's  disclaimer  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding ;  and  by  some 
of  them,  our  names  are  debarred  a  place  in  the  Lamb's  Book  of  Life. 
This  is  the  unhappy  condition  of  ministers  and  people — all ;  and  where- 
fore 1  Simply  because  we  are  not  in  connection  with  a  Church  ruled 
by  a  Diocesan  Bishop!  This  is  the  only  earthly  reason,  themselves 
being  judges  ! 

Now,  we  care  very  little  about  the  opinion  which  Prelatists  entertain 
of  our  ecclesiastical  condition,  except  to  inquire — Is  it  true  ?  This  ques- 
tion we  are  bound  to  ask ;  and  it  is  our  duty  to  endeavor  to  answer  it 
properly.  We  believe,  and  we  shall  endeavor  to  maintain,  that  without 
the  touch  of  a  Prelate's  hand  upon  our  head,  we  have  as  good  a  right 
(so  far  as  authority  derived  from  mere  human  ordination  is  concerned,) 
to  preach  the  Gospel,  and  administer  its  ordinances,  as  the  "  Bishop  of 
Tennessee,"  or  any  other  Prelate  in  Christendom.  And  we  believe 
that  so  far  as  divinely  authorized  human  ministration  is  concerned,  the 
people  of  non-Episcopal  denominations  will  stand  just  as  fair  a  chance  of 
entering  Heaven,  as  any  others.  If  we  can  vindicate  these  positions,  it 
is  our  duty  to  do  it.  We  enter  upon  the  work  in  self-defence.  If  we 
cannot  maintain  this  ground — if  we  cannot  vindicate  our  right  to  be  ac- 
knowledged as  ambassadors  of  Christ — let  us,  as  honest  men,  say  so, 
and  let  us  give  up  the  office  ;  or  with  becoming  humility  and  confession, 
go  and  ask  for  orders  in  the  Episcopal,  or  (what  would  be  far  more  con- 
sistent in  that  case,)  in  the  Romish  Church ;  and  let  us  urge  our  people 
to  follow  us,  with  hasty  steps,  as  they  would  fly  from  danger  and  seek 
refuge  in  the  only  ark  of  safety ! 


CHAPTER  II. 

BISHOP    OTEY'S    MISREPRESENTATIONS. 

"  Thou  hast  tried  them  which  say  they  are  Jlpostles,  and  are  not."  SfC,  ^c. 

The  Apocalypse. 

Before  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  the  main  subject  brought  to 
view  in  Bishop  Otey's  pamphlet,  we  wish  to  correct  some  of  his  palpa- 
ble misrepresentations  of  matters  of  fact,  respecting  other  denominations 
of  Christians,  and  especially  as  regards  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Hit- 
whole  performance  is  exceedingly  faulty  in  this  aspect.  Whether  this 
results  from  ignorance,  or  prejudice,  or  a  deliberate  determination  not  to 
do  justice  to  those  from  whom  he  differs,  the  public  may  easily  judge,  as 
each  case  shall  pass  in  review.  In  noticing  these  misstatements,  we 
shall  pass  from  the  less  to  the  greater. 

The  first  specimen  of  what  may  at  least  be  called  unfairness,  which 
deserves  attention,  is  found  in  the  preface  to  his   pamphlet,  as  follows : 

"The  following  sermons  were  written  and  preached  more  than  a  year 
ago  in  the  discharge  of  parochial  duty,  and  without  any  expectation  or 
intention  of  their  publication.  They  make  no  pretensions  to  literary 
merit,  and  no  such  distinction  is  claimed  for  them.  Composed  literally 
^currente  calamo,^  they  are  givento  the  public  just  as  they  were 
preached,  with  the  exception  rf  two  or  three  additional  quotations  in  the 
first  of  the  series,  the  notes  and  the  appendix."* 

This  declaration  may  be  literally  true.  Our  objection  to  it  is,  that  it 
does  not  declare  the  ivhole  truth.  Bishop  Otfey  should  not  only  have 
stated  that  these  sermons  were  "  written  and  preached  more  than  a  year 
ago,''''  and  that  now  "  they  are  given  to  the  public,  just  as  they  were 
I^then]  preached"  &c.,  but  also,  that  they  have  been  preached  since, 
and  that  "they  are"  not  "  given  to  the  public  just  as  they  were  preach- 
ed" in  March  last,  in  Woodville,  Natchez,  &c.  Bishop  Otey  well 
knew,  before  he  had  concluded  his  pastoral  visitation  in  Southern  Mis- 
sissippi, last  Spring,  that  these  discourses,  as  then  preached,  were  the 

•  The  preface  is  dated  "  July  1,  1843."  % 

E 


30  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

occasion  of  loud  complaint  against  him.  Many  of  the  sentiments,  as 
expressed,  were  deemed  "  harsh  and  uncharitable."  1  his  harshness  he 
has  studiously  concealed  from  the  public  eye,  either  by  modification  or 
omission.  In  these  discourses,  as  now  printed,  he  makes  no  allusion 
to  this ;  no  allusion  to  having  preached  the  sermons  since  "  more  than  a 
year  ago  ;"  and,  therefore,  the  statement  that  "  they  are  given  to  the  pub- 
lic just  as  they  were  preached,"  is  calculated  to  mislead  many  readers 
who  did  not  hear  them  from  the  pulpit,  by  inducing  them  to  believe  that 
they  are  now  printed  "just  as  they  were  preached"  in  Woodville, 
Natchez,  &c.,  where  so  much  complaint  was  made  against  them  ! 

Bishop  Otey  was  certainly  under  no  obligation  to  publish  his  dis- 
courses "just  as  they  were  preached,"  either  in  Mississippi,  or  else- 
where. He  was  at  perfect  liberty  to  omit  or  modify  all  that  he  has  done  ; 
and  had  he  but  exhibited  the  candor  of  acknowledging  the  modifications, 
we  might  have  thrown  the  mantle  of  charity  over  the  procedure,  and 
should  have  charged  him  only  with  a  want  of  sufficient  courage  to  give 
the  offensive  matter  to  the  world.  As  it  is,  the  public  cannot  but  regard 
it  as  a  sort  o(  management  which  can  do  no  honor  to  the  cause  of  truth, 
and  no  credit  to  the  man  who  employs  it  in  his  service. 

The  next  misrepresentation  we  feel  bound  to  notice,  is  calculated  to 
prejudice  the  public  mind  against  other  denominations  of  Christians,  by 
drawing  an  unjust  comparison  between  them  and  the  Episcopal  Church. 
In  pointing  out  what  Bishop  Otey  styles  the  "  difference  between  the 
Episcopal  Church  and  others,"  with  regard  to  what  is  required  in  the 
admission  of  members  to  each,  he  says  of  the  Episcopal  Church : — 

"  The  demand  made  is,  ♦  dost  thou  believe  all  the  articles  of  the 
Christian  faith  as  contained  in  the  Apostles'  creed  ?'  and  upon  the  affirm- 
ative profession  thus  made,  we  baptise  in  the  name  of  the  blessed  and 
adorable  Trinity,  and  receive  the  subject  into  the  visible  Church,  as  a 
member  of  Christ's  body.*  Not  so  with  the  self-styled  Reformers  of 
this  age,  who  insist  upon  immersion  as  indispensable  to  admission  into 
the  visible  fold  of  Christ.  Not  so  with  Presbyterians,  who  set  forth  in 
their  '  Confession  of  Faith,'  that  '  angels  and  men,  predestinated  and 
fore-ordained  are  particularly  and  unchangeably  designed— that  the  right- 
eous are  chosen  in  Christ  into  everlasting  glory,  out  of  God's  mere  free 
grace  and  love,  without  any  foresight  of  faith  or  good  works,  or  perse- 
verance in  either  of  them,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature,  as  condi- 
tions, or  causes  moving  him  thereunto  ;  and  all  to  the  praise  of  his  glo- 
rious grace ' — and  that  it  hath  pleased  God,  '  for  the  glory  of  his  sove- 
reign power  over  his  creatures,  to  pass  by  the  rest  of  mankind,  and  or- 

•  See  Appendix  A. 


BISHOP  otey's  misrepresentations.  31 

dain  them  to  dishonor  and  wrath  for  their  sins  to  the  praise  of  his  glo- 
rious justice' — Not  so  with  Methodists,  who  substitute  internal  persua- 
sions, which  they  call  the  assurance  of  faith,  or  the  witness  of  God's 
spirit,  for  holiness  of  life — inward  purity  and  moral  rectitude,  as  the 
proper  evidence  of  conversion — of  renovation^of  an  acceptable  state 
with  God.  Not  so  with  Papists,  who  demand  unqualified  submission  to 
the  decrees  of  the  council  of  Trent  in  the  16th  century,  as  an  indispens- 
able condition  of  salvation.  Thus  the  theological  opinions  of  men  arc 
attempted  to  be  bound  on  the  consciences  of  mankind  as  dogmas  of  faith, 
and  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  us  free,  virtually  destroyed. 
Contrary  to  all  these  and  many  others  too  numerous  to  be  named,  the 
Holy  Catholic  Church  of  Christ  teaches  as  articles  of  faith  those  things 
only  which  are  plainly  delivered  in  the  written  word  of  Christ  and  his 
Apostles,  and  about  the  truth  of  which  there  never  was  any  doubt  among 
the  faithful."* 

The  obvious  desio-n  of  this  pretended  comparison,  is  to  exhibit  the 
liberality  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  in  opposition  to  the  rigidity  of  the 
other  Churches  named.  With  "  the  self-styled  reformers  of  this  age,** 
and  the  "Papists"  touching  the  point  in  question,  we  have  nothing  at 
present  to  do.  The  charge  here  preferred  against  tlie  Methodists,  has 
been  well  met  in  a  pamphlet  recently  published  by  the  Rev.  S.  \V.  Speer 
of  Natchez.  We,  therefore,  pass  this  by  also.  The  allegation  brought 
against  the  Presbyterian  Church  deserves  notice.  It  amounts  to  this  : — 
that  in  the  admission  of  persons  to  membership,  ihzy  are  required  to 
adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith.  This  is  fairly  implied  in  the  Bishop's* 
language  above  quoted,  as  the  particular  tenets  to  which  he  refers  are 
those  which  he  evidently  deemed,  (of  all  in  the  Confession)  the  most  re- 
volting to  the  popular  mind. 

Of  this  allegation,  we  have  just  this  to  say  :■ — it  is  notoriously  false. 
We  shall  not  stop  now  to  argue  the  consistency  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 
with  Scripture.  That  question  is  not  here  in  debate.  The  only  point  at 
present  is,  whether  persons  are  required  to  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith 
as  a  term  of  membership  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Bishop  Otey 
designedly  conveys  the  impression  that  they  are.  It  is  a  false  impres- 
sion. Where  does  the  Bishop  find  this  requisition  set  forth  ?  It  is  not 
in  the  Confession  itself.  Ministers  and  Ruling  Elders  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  are  required  to  answer  the  following  question  in  the  affirmative, 
as  a  condition  of  their  being  ordained  to  those  offices  respectively  :  ♦'  Do 
you  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  this  Church, 
as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  f" — 

*  Discoursta,  i>p.  IJ,  11, 


32  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

But  the  Confession  is  silent  as  to  any  such  demand  on  the  admission  of 
members.  It  is  not  only  no  where  expressed,  but  there  is  nothing  in 
the  whole  Confession  from  which  it  can  be  implied.  On  the  contrary, 
this  very  Confession,  with  which  Bishop  Otey  professes  to  be  somewhat' 
acquainted,  when  pointing  out  the  process  by  which  members  are  re- 
ceived, says  that  "  those  who  are  to  be  admitted  to  sealing  ordinances, 
(Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,)  shall  be  examined  as  to  their  knowledge 
and  piety ;"  but  it  says  not  one  word  about  their  being  required  to  adopt 
the  Confession  of  Faith.* 

Here,  then,  is  presumptive  evidence  at  least,  from  the  document  itself, 
and  in  the  only  place  where  the  Confession  speaks  of  the  terms  of  mem- 
bership, that  the  allegation  of  Bishop  Otey  is  false.  We  say  it  is  pre- 
sumpHve  evidence  ;  for  if  the  Confession  contains  a  formula  for  its  ex- 
plicit adoption  by  the  clergy  and  ruling  elders  at  their  ordination,  and 
points  out,  with  equal  plainness,  the  mode  of  adaiitting  members,  in 
which  nothing  is  said  about  adopting  the  Confession,  the  fair  presumption 
is  that  persons  are  not  required  to  adopt  the  Confession  as  a  term  of  com- 
munion on  their  admission  to  membership;  otherwise,  the  Confession 
would  contain  such  a  requisition  in  explicit  terms.  This,  in  the  absence 
of  all  other  evidence,  should  have  taught  Bishop  Otey  the  falsity  of  his 
statement.  It  is  quite  enough  with  any  reasonable  man  to  settle  the  case 
against  him. 

But  we  have  something  more  than  presumptive  evidence.  The  posi- 
tive jarac^ice  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  on  this  point  is  the  very  re- 
verse of  what  Bishop  Otey  would  have  the  public  believe.  He  will  not 
pretend  to  understand  this  better  than  the  clergy  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  From  the  note  below  it  will  be  seen  that  persons  applying  for 
membership,  are  to  be  "  examined  as  to  their  knowledge  and  piety." — 
This  is  done  by  the  pastor  and  elders,  (called  collectively,  the  Session,) 
of  the  particular  Church  in  which  membership  is  sought ;  and  with  the 
Session  is  lodged  discretionary  power  as  to  the  extent  of  the  examination. 
The  burden  of  the  examination  is  generally  confined  to  experimental  re- 

*  The  following  is  from  the  chapter  of  the  Confession  which  treats  ot  admitting  mem- 
bers, and  is  all  that  bears  upon  the  point  in  question.  The  chapter  is  entitled  :  "  Of  the 
admission  of  persons  to  Sealia?  Ordinances.  2.  The  years  of  discretion,  in  young 
Christians,  cannot  be  precisely  fixed.  This  must  be  left  to  the  prudence  of  the  eldership. 
The  officers  of  the  Church  are  the  judges  of  the  qualifications  of  those  to  be  admitted  to 
sealing  ordinances ;  and  of  the  time  when  it  is  proper  to  admit  young  Christians  to 
them.  3.  Those  who  are  to  be  admitted  to  sealing  ordinances,  shall  be  examined  as 
to  their  knowledge  and  piety.  4.  When  unbaptised  persons  apply  for  admission  into 
the  Church,  they  shall,  in  ordinary  cases,  after  giving  satisfaction  with  respect  to  their 
knowledge  and  piety,  make  a  public  profession  of  their  faith  in  the  presence  of  the  con- 
gregation; aud  thereupon  be  baptised." — Directory  for  Worshipy  ck.  9. 


BISHOP  otey's  misrepresentations.  33 

ligion — to  ascertaining  the  candidate's  acquaintance  with  vital,  personal 
piety — evidence  is  sought  of  a  work  of  grace  in  the  renewal  of  the  heart, 
and  of  a  desire  and  firm  purpose  to  lead  a  holy  life.  The  "  knowledge" 
which  the  candidate  is  required  to  possess,  has  respect  to  those  simple 
truths  of  redemption,  in  the  reception  of  which  the  great  mass  of  Chris- 
tians of  every  name  are  agreed,  and  which  they  all  deem  essential.  As 
to  other  doctrines  taught  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  the  candidate  is  not 
always  supposed  to  have  a  well  settled  conviction,  either  one  way  or  the 
other.  He  enters  the  Presbyterian  Church  as  a  learner,  and  not  as  a 
full  grown  theologian;  and,  consequently,  he  is  not  required  to  give  a 
formal  assent  to  all  that  is  set  forth  in  her  Confession,  as  a  condition  of 
membership. 

This,  we  repeat,  is  the  practice  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  admit- 
ting persons  to  membership  in  her  communion.  They  are  examined  as 
to  X\\e\x personal  ^^ piety, ''^  and  as  to  their  "  knowledge  ^^  of  the  cardinal 
doctrines  of  redemption,  in  which  the  mass  of  Christians  have  ever 
been  agreed.  If  the  Episcopal  Church  is  more  lax  than  this  in  receiving 
members,  we  do  not  envy  its  pretended  liberality. 

Here,  then,  is  proof  positive  of  the  falsity  of  Bishop  Otey's  statement— 
the  practice  of  the  Church.  Where,  it  may  now  be  asked,  did  he  find 
authority  for  this  allegation  ?  The  Confession  of  Faith  which  he  quotes 
does  not  authorize  it,  but  plainly  indicates  the  contrary.  The  practice  of 
the  Church  is  not  according  to  it,  but  agrees  with  the  mode  prescribed  by 
the  Confession.  He  perhaps  has  no  better  authority  than  his  own  fer- 
tile imagination.  Of  his  motives  for  attempting  to  make  this  false  im- 
pression upon  the  public  mind,  we  cannot  speak.  We  are  willing  to 
believe  that  he  thought  he  was  conveying  the  truth.  We  are  willing  to 
believe  that  he  was  really  ignorant  of  the  truth  in  the  case.  But  his 
ignorance  cannot  excuse  him  from  being  chargeable  with  a  grave  offence. 
The  offence  consists  (in  case  of  ignorance,)  in  making,  impliedly,  a 
statement  respecting  the  Presbyterian  Church,  directly  calculated,  if  not 
plainly  intended,  to  disparage  it  in  the  public  esteem,  without  knowing 
the  statement  to  be  true  ;  a  statement  which  in  reality  is  false  not  only, 
but  which  he  must  have  perceived  to  be  so,  had  he  taken  reasonable  pains 
to  examine  the  Confession  of  Faith,  or  made  diligent  inquiry  as  to  the 
»  practice  of  the  Church. 

The  next  misrepresentation  of  Bishop  Otey  is  of  a  more  serious  cha- 
racter, if  possible,  so  far  as  he  is  personally  concerned,  The  one  just 
noticed  might  be  deemed  sufficiently  so.  It  is  a  false  impression  made 
to  our  injury  as  a  Church,  though  over  it  we  are  willing  to  throw  the 
mantle  of  charity,  by  supposing  the  Bishop  culpably  ignorant.     We  wish 


34  PRELACY    EXAMIN^ED. 

as  much  might  be  said  in  his  behalf,  respecting  the  point  now  to  be 
noticed.  We  wish  it  for  the  credit  of  our  common  Christianity.  It  gives 
us  no  pleasure  to  be  obliged  to  point  out,  in  the  writings  of  a  minister  of  the 
Gospel,  statements  which  the  most  unlettered  Christian  in  the  land  knows 
to  be  false— errors  so  notoriously  and  universally  untrue,  that  they  ap- 
pear to  us  to  be,  in  spite  of  all  the  charity  we  can  summon  to  our  relief, 
not  of  the  head,  but  of  the  heart.  Faithfulness  to  the  cause  of  truth, 
however,  requires  that  the  case  should  be  presented  as  it  is;  and  we  shall 
discharge  the  duty  without  fear  of  the  consequences. 

Bishop  Otey  introduces  the  sermon  in  which  the  statements  in  question 
are  found,  by  speaking  of  the  opposition  to  Christianity  which  existed 
in  the  time  of  the  Apostles.  After  the  introduction  he  proceeds  :  "  But  I 
have  selected  this  text  not  for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  grounds  of 
opposition  to  Christianity  originally.  They  present  to  our  minds  a  very 
striking  analogy  in  the  position  which  the  Church*  occupies  towards  the 
world  at  the  present  day,  and  the  character  of  the  opposition  which  is 
arrayed  against  her.  It  is  our  purpose  to  inquire  why  she  is  every 
where  spoken  against,  and  whether  opposition  to  her  is  not  opposition  to 
Christianity  itself. 

"  1.  The  first  charge  brought  against  the  Church,  is  exclusiveness  of 
ministerial  authority.  If  our  claims  upon  the  subject  of  the  ministry  be 
admitted,  say  those,  who  have  separated  themselves  from  our  communion, 
then  they  are  in  schism.  But  as  there  are  confessedly  a  great  many  pious 
people  who  are  not  Episcopalians,  it  would  be  very  uncharitable  and 
illiberal  to  say  that  they  were  guilty  of  schism,  and  we  ought  therefore 
to  admit  the  validity  of  their  orders. 

"  Now  we  have  stated  the  objection  as  it  is  commonly  made,  and  let 
us  meet  it  fairly,  and  take,  at  the  beginning,  all  the  odium  which  usually 
attaches  to  the  denial  of  its  force  and  justice."! 

After  the  above  passage,  the  Bishop,  through  several  pages,  speaks  of 
the  necessity  of  ordination,  as  evidence  of  ministerial  authority ;  of  the 
manner  by  which  ordination  is  now  authenticated ;  of  the  necessary  con- 
nection of  sacraments  and  a  ministry ;  and  of  the  neglect  of  the  sacra- 
ments to  which  a  neglect  of  the  ministry  leads.  All  this,  with  some  se- 
rious exceptions,  which  we  shall  not  now  stop  to  notice,  is  well  enough. 
Then  he  sums  up  his  reply  to  the  objection  of  "exclusiveness  of  minis- 
terial authority  "  which  he  is  examining,  as  follows  4 

*  The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  that  by  "  the  Church  "  is  meant  the  Bishop's  own  sect 
or  branch. 

t  Discourses,  p.  33. 

t  The  latter  part  of  this  extract  is  marked  by  a  side  note  as  IoUowb  :  "  Trcsbyterinns 
as  exclusive  as  Episcopalians." 


filsHOP  otey's  misrepresentations.  35 

'•  If  it  be  true,  then,  that  Christ  instituted  a  ministry,  and  sacraments 
in  his  church — if  it  be  clear  that  the  sacraments  are  of  perpetual  obliga- 
tion and  cannot  be  dispensed  or  administered  without  a  standing  ministry — 
if  the  authority  of  the  ministry  cannot  now  be  certified  by  miracles,  it 
follows  inevitably  that  this  ministry  can  be  known  and  verified  only  as 
proof  shall  be  exhibited  that  the  authority  originally  delegated  by  Christ 
to  his  apostles  has  been  transmitted  in  an  uninterrupted  succession  to 
those  who  at  this  day  claim  to  exercise  office  in  the  Christian  Church. 
This  is  what  is  termed  the  Apostolic  Succession,  for  maintaining  which, 
the  charge  of  exclusiveness  is  brought  against  the  Church-— this  is  one  of 
the  reasons  why  she  '  is  every  where  spoken  against.'  And  yet,  strange 
as  it  may  appear,  it  is  nevertheless  demonstrably  true,  that  all  those  who 
contend  for  the  institution  of  a  ministry  authorized  to  act  in  Christ's 
name,  in  the  appointments  of  religion,  do  adopt  identically  the  same 
principle.  Hear  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church: 
«  Unto  this  catholic  visible  Church,  Christ  hath  given  the  ministry,  ora- 
cles, and  ordinances  of  God,  for  the  gathering  and  perfecting  of  the  saints, 
in  this  life,  to  the  end  of  the  world :  and  doth  by  his  own  presence  and 
spirit,  according  to  his  promise,  make  them  effectual  thereunto.'  The 
same  authority  sets  forth  that  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  are  '  holy 
signs  and  seals  of  the  covenant  of  grace,'  appointed  by  Christ,  for  our 
'  solemn  admission  into  the  Church,'  and  for  '  confirming  and  sealing 
our  interest  in  him  ;'  and  they  are  not  to  be  dispensed  by  any  but  by  a 
minister  of  the  word,  '  lawfully  ordained.'  Do  we  enquire  who  are  'law- 
fully ordained  ministers,'  according  to  the  same  standard  ?  We  are  in- 
formed '  that  the  Presbytery, — consisting  of  all  the  ministers,  and  one 
ruling  elder  from  each  congregation,  within  a  certain  district — or  any 
three  ministers  and  as  many  elders  as  may  be  present  belonging  to  the 
Presbytery, — have  power  to  examine  and  license  candidates  for  the  holy 
ministry ;  to  ordain,  instal,  remove,  and  judge  ministers.'  TVhat  then 
becomes  of  the  charge  of  exclusiveness  against  the  church — if  the  very 
same,  upon  identically  the  same  grounds,  m,ay  be  urged  against  the 
Presbyterians  and  indeed  all  others  who  reject  Episcopacy,  but  yet 
claim  the  power  of  ordination  as  grounded  upon  the  commission  of 
Christ  to  his  apostles  ?  Let  the  truth  be  told,  Brethren — honestly — 
openly—fairly.''^* 

If  a  serious  and  deliberate  assault  upon  the  truth  can  be  aggravated  by 
adding  the  ingredient  of  a  shameless  boldness  in  the  manner  of  making 
it,  the  deed  is  most  successfully  done  in  the  words  with  which  the  above 
extract  closes.     We   shall  give  the  public  a  little  plain  truth  upon  this 

•Discourses,  pp.  37,  38,  39. 


36  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

point  of  "exclusiveness  of  ministerial  authority,"  and  then  leave  them  io 
judge  whether  Bishop  Otey  has  "told"  it — "honestly — openly — fairly." 

The  drift  and  manifest  bearing — nay,  the  direct  statement — in  all  this, 
is,  to  charge  other  denominations,  and  Presbyterians  by  name,  with 
maintaining  the  same  '^exclusiveness  of  ministerial  aiithority,^^  as 
is  maintained  by  Episcopalians.  We  refer  the  reader  to  the  passage, 
and  ask  him  in  seriousness  if  he  can  make  any  thing  else  out  of  it.  In 
confirmation  of  this  meaning,  it  is  only  necessary  to  cite  one  ot  two 
extracts  farther  on,  as  follows  :  "  Thus  it  is  plain,  that  the  presbyteriat 
system  is  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  EXcLtJgiVE  as  any  other." 
Again :  "  Perhaps  enough  has  now  been  said  to  show  that  there  is  no 
just  ground  of  complaint  against  the  Church,  [the  Episcopal  Church,]  be- 
cause of  her  exclusiveness :  since  she  occupies,  in  this  respect,  the 
same  position  with  others.*'*  * 

)  It  is  then  plain,  beyond  all  question,  that  Bishop  Otey,  in  these  pas- 
sages, deliberately  and  directly  charges  other  denominations,  and  par- 
ticularly Presbyterians,  with  maintaining  an  "  exclusiveness  of  ministe- 
rial authority,"  identical  with  that  maintained  by  the  Episcopal  Church. 
We  are  not  at  this  point  at  all  concerned  with  the  fallacious  reasoning 
which  has  brought  him  to  such  a  conclusion.  We  shall  notice  that  in 
due  time.  We  have  now  only  to  do  with  the  simple  question  of  fact 
which  his  charge  declares.  Is  it  true  or  false  ?  that  is  the  question.  We 
pronounce  it  unqualifiedly  false,  and  respectfully  ask  attention  to  the  proof. 

In  order  to  bring  the  matter  to  a  fair  test,  we  shall  present,  in  parallel 
columns,  a  few  of  the  distinctive  principles  of  Episcopacy  and  Presby- 
tery. The  plainest  reader  will  be  able  to  see,  from  this  comparison, 
whether  these  two  systems  are  identical  or  antagonistical — whether  they 
are  alike  "exclusive"  or  not — as  regards  their  views  of  "ministerial 
authority."  The  principles  under  the  head  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
will  represent,  in  most  points,  those  maintained  by  the  Congregational, 
Baptist,  Methodist,  Lutheran,  Dutch  Reformed,  and  other  evangelical 
Churches.  We  challenge  a  denial  of  the  correctness  of  a  single  point  on 
either  side.     But  to  the  parallel : — 

THE  EPISCOPAL   CHURCH  THE   PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH 

1.  Claims  to  have  the  form  of  1.  Maintains  that  its  form  of  min- 
ministerial  government  established  isterial  government  is  that  establish- 
by  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  viz :  in  ed  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  viz : 
three  orders  of  clergy,  Bishops,  in  one  order  of  clergy,  officially 
Priests  and  Deacons.  equal.     But 

•Discourses,  pp.  41,  44. 


BISHOP  otey's  misrepresentations. 


37 


THE    EPISCOPAL    CHURCir. 

2.  It  maintains  that  such  a  de- 
parture from  this  form  as  exists  in 
the  Presbyterian,  Methodist,  Bap- 
tist, Congregational,  and  other  de- 
nominations, destroys  the  claim  of 
these  denominations  to  be  Churches. 

3.  It  claims  that  such  a  ministry 
as  its  own,  ordained  by  Prelates, 
whose  ecclesiastical  pedigree  can  be 
traced  directly  to  the  Apostles,  is  the 
only  authorized  ministry  on  earth. 
By  necessary  consequence,  and  in- 
deed direcdy, 

4.  It  affirms  that  the  ministry  of 
other  denominations  than  prelatical, 
have  no  valid  authority  to  preach 
the  Gospel  or  administer  its  ordi- 
nances ;  and  that  their  Churches, 
having  neither  ministry  nor  sacra- 
ments, are  no  (Churches. 

5.  Whenever  a  minister  of  an- 
other denomination  would  enter  the 
ministry  of  the  Episcopal  (Jhurch, 
he  is  subjected  to  a  re-ordination, 
his  former  ordination  being  deemed 
no  ordination,  and  he,  consequently 
no  minister. 

6.  When  members  of  other 
Churches  are  received  into  the  Epis- 
copal Church,  they  are  frequently 
subjected  to  a  re-baptism,  their  for- 
mer baptif  m  being  deemed  invalid  in 
consequence  of  the  alleged  want  of 
authority  in  the  administrator.* 


THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH. 

2.  It  does  not  maintain  that  such 
a  departure  from  this  form  as  exists 
in  the  Episcopal  and  some  other 
Churches,  destroys  their  claim  to  be 
Churches.  It  admits  them  to  be 
Churches  notwithstanding. 

3.  It  claims  no  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority for  its  ministry  in  any  re- 
spect superior  to  that  of  other 
Churches ;  but  what  it  claims  for 
its  own,  it  treely  concedes  to  theirs, 
so  far  as  the  matter  of  ordination  is 
concerned. 

4.  It  uniformly  acknowledges 
that  the  ministers  of  the  Episcopal 
and  all  Evangelical  Churches,  are 
duly  authorized  to  preach  the  Gos- 
pel, and  administer  its  ordinances; 
and  that  their  Churches  are  true 
Churches  of  Christ. 

5.  Whenever  a  minister  of  the 
Episcopal  or  other  Evangelical 
Church  desires  to  enter  the  ministry 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  he  is 
not  subjected  to  a  re-ordination,  his 
previous  orders  being  deemed  en- 
tirely valid. 

6.  When  members  of  the  Epis- 
copal or  any  Evangelical  Church 
are  received  into  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  they  are  received  without 
re-baptism,  the  previous  adminis- 
tration of  the  rite  being  deemed 
valid. 


•  Rev.  Mr.  Fayne  of  ihe  Episcopal  Church,  died  in  Woodville,  Miss.,  about  a  year  since. 
On  his  death  bed  he  wiis  baptised  by  Bishop  Poili  of  Louisiana,  although  he  had  been 
previously  baptised  by  a  Presbyteiiari  minister.  In  the  obituary  of  Mr.  Payne,  published 
in  the  "  Banner  of  the  Cross,"  Phi!.,  his  baptism  by  the  Presbyterian  Clergyman  is  styled 
"  lay  baptism,"  and  of  course  the  minister  himself  was  de.emed  but  a  layman.  How  many 
persons  this  same  Mr.  Payne  hp.d  baptised  before  (in  the  estimation  of  the  writer)  he  had 
himself  been  baptised,  the  obituary  does  not  say  ! 


38  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

7.  Ministers  of  other  Churches  7.  Episcopal  ministers,  and  those 
are  not  allowed  to  preach  in  Epis-  of  other  Churches,  are  frequently 
copal  pulpits,  as  they  are  deemed  invited  and  do  preach  in  Presbyte- 
but  laymen.  rian  pulpits.* 

8.  The  members  of  Episcopal  8.  The  members  of  Presbyterian 
Churches  are  frequently  instructed  and  other  Churches,  frequently 
not  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  ad- 
in  other  Churches,  as  the  clergy  ministered  by  the  clergy  of  the 
thereof  are  not  authorized  to  ad-  Episcopal  and  other  Churches,  be- 
minister  it.  And  sometimes  as  we  lieving-  them  authorized  to  adminis- 
have  shown  ter  it.     But,  (as  we  fully  believe,) 

9.  They  are  warned  not  to  at-  9.  They  are  never  admonished 
tend  any  of  the  meetings  of  other  not  to  attend  service  in  the  Episco- 
denominations,  as  their  ministers  pal  Church  on  the  ground  that  her 
have  no  commission  to  preach  the  clergy  are  not  authorized  to  preach 
gospel.  the  Gospel. 

*  The  world  is  full  of  facts  in  corroboration  of  this.  We  have  listened  to  Bishop 
McIIvaine  of  Ohio,  when  preaching  from  Dr.  Beecher's  (Presbyterian)  pulpit  in  Cincin- 
nati, and  also  to  Bishop  Browneli  of  Connecticut,  in  the  First  Presbyterian  Church, 
New  Orleans,  (when  Dr.  Parker  was  Pastor,)  though  it  was  not  expected  that  either  of 
these  worthy  Prelates  would  reciprocate  the  courtesy.  Rev.  Mr.  Boyd  occupied  the 
pulpit  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  Vicksburg,  Miss.,  for  a  considerable  tima,  when  the 
Episcopal  Church  was  unfinished.  If  we  do  not  greatly  mistake,  the  lilce  courtesy  has 
been  extended  to  Bishop  Otey,  in  New  Orleans,  in  former  days;  but  was  it  ever  known 
that  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee"  offered  his  pulpit  to  any  clergyman  not  prelaticaliy 
ordained  ?  We  trow  not.  During  the  sitting  of  the  Mississippi  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Church  in  Woodville  in  November  last,  the  Presbyterian  Church  was  occu- 
pied by  the  Methodist  Clergy,  on  invitation  of  the  Pastor,  during  the  entire  services  of 
the  Sabbath,  while  the  Episcopal  Church  was  closed.  The  same  liberality,  as  is  well 
known,  of  admitting  the  Episcopal  Clergy  to  their  pulpits,  is  characteristic  of  the  Metho- 
dists, Baptists,  Congregationalists,  &c. 

^fCt  Since  writing  the  above,  the  fact  has  come  to  our  knowledge  that  Bishop  Otey 
preached  the  discourses  here  reviewed,  in  Vicksburg,  Miss.,  from  the  pulpit  of  the 
Peesbyterian  Church,  which  had  been  offered  him  out  of  courtesy,  as  the  Episcopalians 
had  no  house  of  worship  in  that  city  which  they  could  occupy !  It  is  also  stated  in  a 
letter  of  Rev.  Dr.  DufEeld,  of  Detroit,  recently  published,  that  in  many  of  the  towns 
and  villages  of  Michigan,  where  there  are  no  Episcopal  Churches,  Presbyterian  minis- 
ters have,  in  numerous  instances  of  late,  tendered  the  use  of  their  pulpits  to  the  Eqisco- 
pal  clergy;  and  "  that  when  they  thus  gave  their  houses  for  the  use  of  Episcopalians 
and  gathered  in  their  people  to  worship  with  them,  they  were  insulted  by  hearing  the 
exclusive  claims  to  the  ministry  of  Christ  asserted  for  those  who  had  been  ordained  by  a 
Diocesan  Bishop,  and  their  own  ministry,  and  ordinances  and  Churches,  by  implications, 
plain  and  obvious,  denounced  as  impostures  and  sacrilegious  P''  What  a  beautiful  com- 
mentary is  furnished  in  these  two  cases  by  both  the  parties  concerned,  upon  the  Apostolic 
injunction  that  "  a  Bishop  must  be  given  to  hospitality !"  The  Presbyterian  clergy,  the 
true  scriptural  Bishops,  showed  that  they  possessed  the  real  essence  of  this  old-fashioned 
virtue,  while  the  conduct  of  the  Episcopal  clergy,  (the  so  called  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles,) was  such  as  would  be  pronounced  by  the  world  unworthy  of  gentlemen^  not  to  say 
of  christians  and  christian  ministers. 


BISHOP  otey's  misrepresentations.  39 

Now  we  submit  the  case  to  the  reader— can  the  charge  of  Bishop 
Otey  be  sustained  ?  Is  it  not  totally  false  ?  The  evidence  that  the 
principles  above  ascribed  to  the  Episcopal  Church  are  held  by  that 
Church,  is  abundantly  furnished  in  the  previous  chapter  ;  and  much  more 
of  the  same  kind  might  be  given.  That  a  correct  representation  also 
is  given  above  of  the  principles  which  characterize  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  we  challenge  Bishop  Otey  or  any  one  else  to  deny.  Indeed, 
the  case  is  too  well  known  to  admit  of  doubt.  It  is  a  simple  question 
of  fact ;  and  the  public  well  know,  that  the  facts  are  as  they  are  here 
stated.  It  is  a  matter  so  plain  and  notorious  that  Bishop  Otey  cannot  be 
ignorant.  And  yet  he  has  the  hardihood  to  say,  that  "  the  Presbyterial 
system  is  as  exclusive"  as  that  of  the  Episcopal  Church ! 

This  case  is  so  clearly  against  the  Rev.  Prelate,  that  we  are  somewhat 
at  a  loss  to  conjecture  a  reason  sufficient  to  induce  him  to  make  so  gross 
a  charge.  We  can  imagine  no  better  than  that  suggested  by  the  homely 
adage — "  misery  loves  company."  The  observing  Bishop  is  doubtless 
aware  that  the  "  exclusiveness  of  ministerial  authority"  which  is  really 
maintained  by  the  "  Bishops  and  other  Clergy"  of  the  Episcopal  Church, 
excites  odium  m  the  popular  feeling.  It  is  perhaps  not  surprising,  then, 
that  he  should  wish  to  draw  others,  nolens  volens,  into  the  same  un- 
fortunate predicament  with  himself,  that  they  may  help  to  bear  the  un- 
welcome load.  He  may  rest  assured  that  Presbyterians  will  not  be 
behind  his  own  Church  in  fulfilling  the  Apostolic  injunction — "  Bear  ye 
one  another's  burdens" — whenever  the  case  demands  it;  but  he  should 
know  that  we  are  not  willing,  without  even  being  previously  consulted, 
to  bear  a  load  like  this,  which  the  yoke  of  Christ  does  not  impose  ;  and 
especially,  while  the  same  Apostle  says — "  For  every  man  shall  bear 
his  own  burden." 

But  there  is  another  serious  fault  in  this  matter  which  deserves  the 
severest  rebuke.  The  Bishop  is  not  only  not  satisfied  with  an  attempt 
to  force  us  to  share  in  the  odium  arising  from  an  "  exclusiveness  of  minis- 
terial authority"— an  exclusiveness,  as  we  have  seen,  belonging  purely  to 
his  own  Church — but,  seemingly,  he  even  wishes  us  to  share  in  the 
odium  which  must  attach  to  himself  personally  in  making  the  ungene- 
rous and  unfounded  allegation.  This  is  quite  too  bad  ;  and  were  it  not 
a  matter  of  serious  import,  the  manner  in  which  the  attempt  is  made 
would  be  quite  amusing.  He  is  not  satisfied  with  making  out  the  case  of 
*'  exclusiveness"  against  us  as  a  Church,  by  simply  asserting,  as  a  fact, 
what  all  the  world  knows  to  be  totally  without  foundation  ;  but  he  would 
put  words  into  our  own  mouths,  and  make  us  tell  the  untruth  too !  And 
further, — it  is  not  even  enough  for  him  to  assert  the  Cliarge,  and  make 


40  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

us  assert  it  loo,  but  he  would  seriously  attempt  to  make  the  language  of 
our  standards  jjroye  the  assertion  !  This  is  almost  provoking.  Let  us  ex- 
amine the  farcical  performance. 

In  the  foregoing  extract  from  hi-s  pamphlet,  it  will  be  seen,  he  professes 
to  make  a  quotation  from  the  Confossion  of  Faith,  to  prove  that  the 
Presbyterian  Church  maintains  the  same  *'  exclusiveness  of  ministerial 
authority,"  as  the  Episcopal  Church.  A  part  of  the  extract  is  here  re- 
peated as  follows  : — "  This  is  what  is  termed  the  Apostolic  Succession, 
for  maintaining  which,  the  charge  of  exclusiveness  is  brought  against  the 
Church — this  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  she  '  is  every  where  spoken 
against.'  And  yet,  strange  as  it  may  appear,  it  is  nevertheless  demon- 
strably true,  that  all  those  who  contend  for  the  institution  of  a  ministry 
authorized  to  act  in  Christ's  name,  in  the  appointments  of  religion  do 
adopt  identically  the  same  principle.  Hear  the  Confession  of  Faith  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  :  '  Unto  this  catholic  visible  Church,  Christ 
hath  given  the  ministry,  oracles,  and  ordinances  of  God,  for  the  gather- 
ing and  perfecting  of  the  saints,  in  this  life,  to  the  end  of  the  world:  and 
doth  by  Ilis  own  presence^and  spirit,  according  to  Ills  promise,  make 
them  effectual  thereunto.*  The  same  authority  sets  forth  that  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper,  are  '  holy  signs,  and  seals  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,'  appointed  by  Christ,  for  our  '  solemn  admission  into  the  Church,' 
and  for  '  confirming  and  sealing  our  interest  in  him;'  and  they  are  not  to 
be  dispensed  by  any  but  by  a  ^  minister  of  the  word  lawfully  ordained.' 
Do  we  enquire  who  are  '  lawfully  ordained  ministers,'  according  to  the 
same  standard  ?  We  are  informed  that  '  the  Presbytery, — consisting  of 
all  the  ministers,  and  one  ruling  elder  from  each  congregation,  within  a 
certain  district — or  any  three  ministers  and  as  many  elders  as  may  be 
present  belonging  to  the  Presbytery, — have  power  to  examine  and  license 
candidates  for  the  holy  ministry ;  to  ordain,  instal,  remove  and  judge 
ministers.'  What  then  becomes  of  the  charge  of  exclusiveness  against 
the  Church — if  the  very  same,  upon  identically  the  same  grounds,  may 
be  urged  against  the  Presbyterians  and  indeed  all  others  who  reject 
Episcopacy,  but  yet  claim  the  power  of  ordination  as  grounded  upon 
the  commission  of  Christ  to  his  Apostles  ?" 

We  do  not  say  that  the  above  language  which  Bishop  Otey  has  quoted 
from  the  Confession  is  garbled :  it  is  more.  It  is  made,  as  he  presents 
it,  to  utter  a  sentiment  directly  the  reverse  of  what  is  its  designed  and 
plain  meaning.  We  submit  to  any  unprejudiced  reader  who  is  entirely 
unacquainted  with  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
ihiis  F;.i.plc  question  :  Does  it  not  appear,  from  the  quotations  Bishop 
Otey  here  makes  from  the  Confession,  that  the  language  applies,  through- 


BISHOP  otey's  misrepresentatiojvs.  41 

out,  to  the  Presbyterian  Church  ?  Do  you  not  get  the  impression  from 
the  words — ■•'  Unto  i/jt's  catholic  visible  Church,"  &c.,  as  here  presented, 
that  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  meant?  We  confess  that  this  would  be 
the  impression  made  on  our  own  mind,  were  we  not  too  well  acquainted 
with  the  Confession  to  be  deceived  on  this  point.  To  make  this  language 
apply  to  the  Presbyterian  Church,  was  undoubtedly  the  Bishop's  design ; 
for,  without  such  application,  his  reasoning  would  not  only  be  without 
force,  but  without  even  plausibility,  and  his  conclusion  would  be  essen- 
tially absurd.  We  presume  it  will  excite  no  surprise  in  the  mind  of  any 
reader,  after  having  perused  what  has  already  been  exhibited,  to  tell  him 
that  the  worthy  Prelate  would  here  make  the  Confession  misrepresent 
itself  in  a  very  plain  case.  The  true  meaning  of  this  language  of  the 
Confession  is  obvious.  In  the  Jirst  part  of  the  quotation,  commencing 
"  unto  this  catholic  visible  Church,"  the  Confession  is  speaking  not  ot 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  but  of  the  Church  universal!  To  prove  this, 
observe  what  immediately  precedes  what  the  Bishop  has  cited  :  "  The 
visible  Clmrch,  which  is  also  catholic*  or  universal,  under  the  Gospel, 
not  confined  to  one  nation  as  before  under  the  law,  consists  of  all  those 
throughout  the  world  that  projess  the  true  religion,  together  with  their 
children,"  &c.  Then  follows  the  Bishop's  own  extract :  "  Unto  this 
catholic  visible  Church,  [riot  the  Presbyterian  Church  merely,  but  to 
the  ^catholic  or  universal''  Church,  by  whatever  name  known,]  Christ 
hath  given  the  ministry,  oracles  and  ordinances  of  God,  for  the  gathering 
and  perfecting  the  saints  in  this  life  to  the  end  of  the  world, "t  &c.  It  is 
perfectly  plain,  then,  that  the  Confession  in  the  above  language  speaks  of 
the  universal  visible  Church,  and  not  merely  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  Now,  in  the  latter  part  of  this  quotation  which  the  Bishop 
makes,  the  Coiifession  is  speaking  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  that 
alone.  He  says  :  "  Do  we  inquire  who  are  '  lawfully  ordained  minis- 
ters,' according  to  the  same  standard  ?  We  are  informed  that  '  the  Pres- 
byetry,  consisting  of  all  the  ministers,  and  one  ruling  elder  from  each 
congregation,  within  a  certain  district ;  or  any  three  ministers  and  as 
many  elders  as  may  be  present  belonging  to  the  Presbytery,  have  power 
to  examine  and  license  candidates  for  the  holy  ministry ;  to  ordain,  in- 
still, remove  and  judge  ministers.'  "  Here,  (although  these  sentences 
which  speak  of  the  powers  of  the  Presbytery  are  not  found  in  such  close 
connection  in  the  Confession  as  the  Bishop  here  presents  them,  yet)  the 
language  applies  to  the  Presbyterian    Church  alone — applies   solely  to 

*  I'he  world  knows  that  the  term  "  catholic,"  although  monopnjized  by  Episcopaliana 
and  Romanists,  means  ge7ieral  or  universal. 
t Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  25.  sec.  2,  3. 


42  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

the  officers  of  this  particular  Churchy  and  to  the  powers  of  a  Presbytery 
in  it,  as  contradistinguished  from  Church  officers  of  other  denominations 
in  the  '^^  universal  visible  Church."  The  Jormer  part  of  this  quotation 
by  the  Bishop  is  found  at  page  136  of  the  Confession,  (ed.  1840,)  and 
the  latter  part  at  page  418  and  other  pages  further  on — only  some  280 
pages  apart ! — the  one  speaking  of  one  thing  and  the  other  of  another ; 
things  as  distinct  as  light  and  darkness ;  and  yet,  from  the  prelatical 
adroitness  with  which  they  are  here  placed  in  juxtaposition,  they  are  as 
a  whole  made  to  tell  a  story  so  plainly  untrue,  that  probably  no  person 
will  be  deceived  by  the  exhibition,  except  those  who  are  determined  to 
admit  the  statements  of  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee  "  without  examina- 
tion. We  say  prelatical  adroitness  ;  for  it  is  not  the  first  time  that  this 
very  same  game  has  been  played  by  the  advocates  of  prelacy.  It  is  not 
the  first  time  that  this  very  passage  of  the  Confession  has  been  perverted 
to  much  the  same  purpose.  Indeed,  this  convinces  us  that  prelacy  is— 
semper  uhique  idem. 

This,  then,  is  the  way  in  which  Bishop  Otey  would  prove,  from  her 
standards,  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  maintains  an  "  exclusiveness  of 
ministerial  authority "  identical  with  that  of  the  Episcopal  Church ! 
The  device  is  so  shallow,  that  it  can  only  excite  in  our  minds  a  feeling  of 
pity  for  the  man  who  resorts  to  it. 

Having  thus  shown  the  falsity  of  the  Bishop's  charge  of  "exclusive- 
ness "  against  us  as  to  the  simple  matter  of  fact,  and  having  exposed  his 
gross  perversion  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  by  which  he  would  prove 
the  charge,  we  shall  now  exhibit  the  fallacy  of  his  reasoning  by  which  he 
attempts  to  support  this  charge  as  being,  in  his  estimation,  a  correct  deduc- 
tion from  a  principle  which  he  says  the  Presbyterian  Church  maintains. 

Immediately  after  the  foregoing  extract  from  his  pamphlet  which 
closes  with  the  words,  "  Let  the  truth  be  told,  brethren,  honestly,  open- 
ly, fairly,"  occurs  the  following  language  : — (the  words  in  italics  are  the 
Bishop's.)  "  They  [Presbyterians]  flinch  from  the  consequences  of  their 
declared  and  published  sentiments.  Professing  a  sound  principle  to 
which  the  truth  of  God's  word  compels  them  to  subscribe,  they  ye/  deny 
its  application  in  practice,  because  its  practical  exemplification  would 
involve  themselves  in  the  same  odious  imputation  of  exclusiveness  which 
they  seek  to  cast  upon  the  Church.  To  prove  this,  let  us  ask  the  ques- 
tion, where  is  the  power  of  ordination  lodged  in  the  Church  of  Christ  ? 
They  reply,  in  a  council  oj  Presbyters.  Who  lodged  it  there  1  The 
Mpostles,  acting  under  the  authority  of  Christ,  and  guided  by  His  holy 
spirit,'— say  they.  Now,  what  is  the  inevitable  conclusion  from  these 
positions  ?     Why  that  none  others  than  those  Presbyterially  ordained  are 


BISHOP  otey's  misrepresentations.  4^ 

lawful  ministers  of  Christ.  There  is  no  escape  from  this  conclusion; 
for  the  Apostles  did  not  institute  two  modes  of  ordination,  or  leave  the 
matter  open  and  unsettled  by  their  practice.  With  them  there  was  but  one 
Church — but  one  source  of  power  and  authority  in  it — and  but  one 
ministry.  '  There  is  one  body,  and  one  spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called  in 
one  hope  of  your  calling;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God 
and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all  and  in  you  all.'  If 
Presbyterial  ordination  be  the  institution  of  God,  Episcopal  ordination 
must  be  of  man.  They  cannot  both  be  of  Divine  authority,  and  conse- 
quently one  or  the  other  must  be  without  just  claims  to  tlie  obedience  of 
man.  If  the  former,  prove  it  by  Scripture  and  the  voice  of  antiquity,  and 
we  surrender  Episcopacy  upon  the  spot."* 

Again  he  says  :  "  In  the  mean  time  let  it  not  be  forgotten,  that  the  as- 
sumption which  they  make,  namely,  that  Presbyterial  ordination  has  the 
authority  of  Scripture,  and  the  sanction  of  primitive  practice  to  uphold 
it,  carries  with  it  all  the  odious  features  which  it  is  attempted  to  impress 
upon  the  claims  of  Episcopacy.  If  a  council  of  Presbyters  only  are 
invested  with  ordaining  power,  then  ordination  by  a  congregation  is  in- 
valid, and  this  throws  the  Independents,  or  Congregationalists,  and  the 
whole  body  of  Baptists  into  schism — not  only  so,  it  determines  against 
the  validity  of  ordination  by  a  Bishop,  in  whom  alone  the  ordaining 
power  resides  according  to  our  system,  and  consequently  cuts  off  both 
Episcopalians  and  Methodists.  Thus  it  is  plain  that  the  Presbyterial 
system  is  to  all  intents  and  purposes  as  exclusive  as  any  other."t 

To  meet  this  imposing  array  of  words,  by  which  the  Bishop  arrives 
at  a  false  conclusion,  let  us  inquire  in  the  first  place,  what  the  "  sound 
principle"  is  which  we  "profess,"  and  "to  which  the  truth  of  God's 
word  compels  us  to  subscribe."  We  do  "  profess,'*  as  the  Bishop  says, 
that  the  ordaining  power  was  originally  lodged  by  Christ  and  his  Apos- 
tles "  in  a  council  of  Presbyters."  This  is  our  "  sound  principle  ;"  and 
from  it,  or  from  any  of  its  legitimate  "  consequences,"  Presbyterians 
will  never  "  flinch,"  because  they  deem  this  principle  not  only  a  "  sound  " 
but  a  scriptural  one.  Now,  do  we  "  deny  its  application  in  practice  ?" 
This  is  what  the  Bishop  charges.  We  shall  see,  upon  examination,  that 
he  is  quite  as  unfortunate  in  this  as  in  his  other  allegations.  He  asks, 
"  Now  what  is  the  inevitable  conclusion  from  these  positions  ?" — that  is, 
from  the  positions  that  the  power  of  ordination  is  lodged  in  a  council  of 
Presbyters,  and  that  the  Apostles  lodged  it  there  under  Christ's  authority. 
He  replies,  "  Why  that  none  others  than  those  Presbyterially  ordained, 
are  lawful  ministers  of  Christ,     There  is  no  escape  from  this  conclu- 

*  Discourses,  p.  39.  t  Discourses,  pp.  40,  41. 


44  PRELACY    EXAMmED^ 

sion,"  &c.  Well,  for  the  argument's  sake,  suppose  we  admit,  for  thS 
moment,  that  "  there  is  no  escape  from  this  conclusion  ;"  yet,  we  ask, 
by  what  rule  of  rhyme  or  reason  does  it  authorize  the  further  conclusion 
which  the  Bishop  states,  that  "  it  determines  against  the  validity  "  of 
Episcopal  ordination,  "  and  consequendy  cuts  off  both  Episcopalians 
and  Methodists  ?"  Does  not  Bishop  Otey  know  that  it  is  a  constituent 
part  of  the  "  sound  principle,"  above  stated,  in  which  Methodists  and 
Presbyterians  equally  agree,  that  Presbyters,  according  to  the  Scriptures^ 
are  the  highest  officers  in  the  Church  ? — that  in  Scripture  the  terms 
Presbyter  and  Bishop  are  identical,  only  different  names  for  the  same 
officer  ?— that  upon  this  "  sound  prniciple,"  the  Bishops  of  the  Episco- 
pal and  Methodist  Churches  are  simply  Presbyters,  and  in  our  judgment 
can  be  nothing  more  ? — and  that,  accordingly,  when  a  Bishop  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  with  his  Presbyters  assisting,  performs  an  act  of  or- 
dination, it  is,  according  to  our  sound  principle,  an  ordination  performed 
simply  and  truly  by  a  "  council  of  Presbyters  ?"  We  ask  again,  does 
not  Bishop  Otey  know  that  these  are  among  the  ingredients  of  this 
"  sound  principle"  which  we  maintain?  If  he  does,  how  then  can  he 
unblushingly  say,  that  we  "deny  its  application  in  practice  ?"  or,  in  main- 
taining it,  that  it  "  consequently  cuts  off  both  Episcopalians  and  Metho- 
dists ?"  Does  not  Bishop  Otey  further  know,  that  the  power  to  ordain 
which  even  Methodists  themselves  claim  for  their  Bishops,  is  only  a 
power  delegated  by  Presbyters,  and  consequently  that  it  is  only  a  Pres- 
byter ial^ow  ex  1^'  Methodist  Bishops  regard  themselves,  and  all  the  world 
regard  them,  when  viewed  as  Church  officers  on  the  platform  of  Scrip- 
ture, simply  as  Presbyters.  The  name  Bishop  which  they  take,  they 
are  as  ready  as  others  to  admit,  means  'n\  the  Scripture  sense,  the  same 
thing  as  Presbyter  or  Elder.  And  let  us  ask  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennes- 
see" if  he  does  not  know  that  upon  this  same  "  sound  principle,"  even 
he,  and  all  his  brother  Prelates  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  are  regarded 
by  us  as  Presbyters,  and  nothing  more  ?  Let  them  be  consecrated  a 
thousand  times  over,  and  they  can  never  be  regarded  by  us,  upon  this 
"  sound  principle,"  and  upon  the  ground  of  our  oft-"  declared  and  pub- 
lished sentiments''  too,  only  as  Presbyters.  Should  they  all,  with 
one  consent,  cross  the  billowy  Atlantic,  and  submit  to  a  consecration  by 
his  grace  of  Canterbury  ;  and  then  should  they  all  join  the  crowd  now 
on  their  march  to  the   Eternal  City,  and  submit  to   another  consecration 

*  Hear  a  distinguished  divine  of  the  iMethodist  (Jliuich  on  this  point:  'Astu  the 
charge  of  our  having  at  any  time  considered  our  Bishops  as  a  distinct  ministerial  order, 
contradistinguished  from,  and  superior  to,  Presbyters  or  Elders,  it  has  no  foundation  in 
FACT." — Dr.  Bo7id,  as  quoted  in  Musgrave's  '■' Folity  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,'" p.  71. 


BrsHOP  otey's  misrepresentations.  45 

by  his  holiness  of  Rome ;  and  then  to  cap  the  climax,  should  they 
reverently  bow  down  and  kiss  the  Pope's  toe — as  kings  and  Bishops 
have  done  before  them — we  should  still  regard  them  upon  this  "  sound 
principle "  of  Scripture,  as  plain  Presbyters  only,  standing  upon  the 
same  platform  of  official  equality  with  ourselves,  and  having  only  an 
equal  right  with  all  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  to  the  title  lushop. 

It  will  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  point  here  in  debate,  is  not — where 
did  Christ  and  the  Aposdes  lodge  the  ordaining  power? — whether  with 
Presbyters,  or  with  ministers  of  a  higher  grade  ?  This  wdl  be  noticed 
in  due  time.  I  he  point  now  before  us  is  this  :  assuming  for  the  moment 
that  tne  p  wer  hhih  originally  lodged  "  in  a  council  of  Presbyters,"  (as 
we  claim,)  do  we,  in  maintaining  this  principle,  practically  "cut  off  both 
Episcopalians  and  Melliodi  ts?"  We  have  shown  th;it  we  do  not;  for 
we  regard  hlpiscopal  and  Alethodist  Hishops  as  Presbyters,  and  co  se- 
quently  regard  the  ordinations  perf  rmed  by  them  as  presbyteriat  ordina- 
tions merely.  Now,  upi>n  this  principle,  the  reader  will  easily  under- 
stand the  meaning  of  the  note  in  the  Bishop's  pamjihlet,  where  he  cites 
lir.  Mill'T  and  Dr.  McLeod  as  maintaining  that  Presbyters  alone  have 
a  scriptural  right  to  ordain. *  lie  quotes  the  latter  as  saying  :  "  A  person 
who  is  not  ordained  to  office  by  a  Presbytery,  (Presbyters,)  has  no  right 
to  be  received  as  a  minister  of  Christ,"  &;c  These,  we  understand,  are 
the  "declared  and  published  sentiments "  of  Presbyterians,  by  which 
Bishop  Otey  would  exullingly  prove  that  we  maintain  the  same  "  ex- 
clusiveness  of  ministerial  authority"  as  his  own  Church,  and  thus  ne- 
cessarily "  cut  off  both  K])iscopalians  and  Methodists."  But  upr)n  the 
principle  just  stated — that  we  regard  Episcopal  and  Methodist  Bishops 
only  as  Presbyters,  and  their  ordaining  acts  ci  nsequently  and  necessarily 
prt-sbyterial  only — we  may  still  maintain,  if  we  choose,  that  Presbyters 
only  are  authorized  to  ordain,  without  incurring  the  odious  consequences 
which  he  imagines. 

Now  we  will  I'efer  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee''  for  his  edification  on 
this  point,  to  further  "declared  and  published  sentiments "  of  one  of 
these  very  men  whom  he  cites  in  his  note.  Dr  i\iiller  advocates  the 
same  sentiment  we  have  stated  above — yea,  he  has  "  published  "  it  in 
the  very  volume  in  which  we  find  the  quotation  which  Bishop  Otey 
gives  from  his  pen ;  and  yet,  the  g<tod  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee'*  takes  no 
notice  of  this  "declared  and  published  tentiinent"  of  the  Doctor  of 
Princeton  !  lir.  Miller  says  :  "  It  is  '  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
Presbytery,' that  constitutes  a  scriptural   ordinaiion ;  and   it  is  beciiuse 

*  Wlsjcyar^et^  p.  38.  XSo  bucli  opinion,  however,  is  declared  in  the  quotation  troni  Dr. 
Milier. 

6 


46  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

Episcopal  Bishops  are  Presbyters,  and  assisted  in  all  ordinations  by 
other  Presbyters,  that  we  consider  their  ordaining  acts,  on  the  principles 
of  Scripture  and  primitive  usage,  as  valid."*  Had  Bishop  Otey  seen  fit 
to  give  to  the  public  this  passage  from  Dr.  Miller  alongside  of  what  he 
has  quoted,  he  perhaps  might  have  blushed  to  say,  "  They  flinch  from 
the  consequences  of  their  declared  and  published  sentiments.  Professing 
a  sound  principle  to  which  the  truth  of  God's  word  compels  theui  to 
subscribe,  they  yet  deny  its  application  in  practice."  Nothing  is  farther 
from  the  truth.  We  not  only  maintain  this  "  sound  principle"  in  theory, 
but  we  are  willing  to  follow  it,  and  do,  to  all  its  legitimate  consequences 
in  practice;  and  still,  in  its  practical  operation,  it  does  not,  as  we  have 
seen,  "cut  off"  either  Episcopalians  or  Methodists. 

But  Bishop  Otey  may  say,  that  admitting  we  do  not,  either  in  theory 
or  practice,  "  cut  off  Episcopalians  and  Methodists,"  yet  we  must  neces- 
sarily exclude  Congregationalists,  &c.  He  does  say  indeed  in  the 
extract  above  given:  "  If  a  council  ol  Presbyters  only  are  invested  with 
ordaining  power,  then  ordination  by  a  congregation  is  invalid,  and  this 
throws  the  Independents,  or  Congregationalists,  and  the  whole  body  of 
Baptists  into  schism,"  &;c.  This,  no  doubt,  to  some  readers  of  the  Bi- 
shop's pamphlet,  has  been  deemed  a  real  poser  to  Presbyterians.  But 
we  exhort  them  to  possess  their  souls  in  patience,  while  we  look  at  the 
case  a  moment. 

What  does  Bishop  Otey  mean  by  "  ordination  by  a  congregation  V^ 
Does  he  mean  that  in  a  Congregational  Church  all  the  "  congregation  " 
assist  in  the  ordination  of  ministers — men,  women,  and  children?  Is 
he  really  ignorant  of  the  mode  of  ordaining  in  those  Churches  ?  Poes 
he  not  know  that  the  clergy  among  Congregationalists,  Baptists,  and 
other  Independents,  have  their  associations,  consociations,  conventions, 
&c.,  each  of  which,  to  all  the  intents  and  purposes  of  possessing  and 
exercising  the  ordaining  power,  is  a  "  council  of  Presbyters  ?"  Does  he 
not  know  that  upon  our  "  sound  principle,"  they  are  so  regarded  by  us, 
even  in  our  "  declared  and  published  sentiments?"  And  does  he  not 
know,  as  a  simple  matter  of  fact,  that  these  "  councils  of  Presbyters  "— 
(it  is  of  no  consequence  by  what  name  they  may  be  called) — do  ordain 
ministers  in   their  respective  Clmrches,  and  not  the  "  congregation  ?"t 

*Miller'8  Letters,  p  221. 

+  We  speak  now  of  the  general,  and  at  present,  perhaps,  uniform  practice  among  those 
Churches.  We  are  aware  that  at  a  former  day,  (and  possibly  in  some  cases  now,)  some 
Congregationalists  set  apart  their  ministers  by  the  voice  of  the  congregation  at  large. 
These,  however,  constitute  only  exceptions  to  the  general  rule  If  it  be  to  such  that 
Bishop  Otey  refers,  we  say,  that  should  any  such  present  themselves  to  be  admitted  to 
the  ministry  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  we  should  deem  it  of  far  more  importance  to 


BISHOP  otey's  misrepresentations.  47 

With  what  face,  then,  can  he  declare,  that  upon  our  principle  (of  ordina- 
tion by  Presbyters  only)— we  throw  all  these  Churches  "  into  schism?" 
We  will  try  to  enlighten  the  Bishop  further,  by  giving  him  another  ex- 
tract from  the  same  volume  of  Dr.  Miller  already  quoted,  which  will 
exhibit  both  the  "principle"  here  alluded  to,  and  the  fact  of  our  practice 
according  to  it.  Dr.  Miller  says:  "Ministers  have  offered  themselves 
to  the  Church  to  which  I  have  the  honor  to  belong,  not  only  from 
the  Episcopal,  but  also  from  the  Methodist  and  the  Baptist  Churches. 
But  was  a  re-ordinalion  ever  attempted  in  any  one  of  these  cases  ?  I  can 
confidently  affirm  that  no  such  case  ever  occured ;  certainly  none  ever 
came  to  my  knowledge.  In  every  instance  in  which  it  was  ascertained 
that  the  minister  applying  to  be  received,  had  been  regularly  set  apart  to 
the  sacred  office,  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  men  authorized  to 
preach  and  administer  the  sacraments  ix  their  own  church,  he  w.is 
freely  received,  and  his  ordination  sustained  as  valid.^^* 

The  above  is  sufficient  to  show,  that,  in  our  "  declared  and  published 
sentiments" — in  our  theory  and  in  our  uniform  practice — while  we  main- 
tain the  general  principle  that  Presbyters  are  the  proper  ordainers  to  the 
ministry,  we  do  not  in  carrying  out  this  general  rule,  "  cut  off"  either 
Congregationalists,  Methodists,  Baptists,  Episcopalians,  or  the  ministers 
in  any  Evangelical  Church  in  (Christendom,  who  are  duly  authorized  to 
preach  and  administer  the  ordinances  of  the  Gospel  in  their  respective 
Churches. 

The  contrary  is  notoriously  true.  And  yet,  in  the  face  of  this  our  un- 
varying practice  so  well  known — and  in  the  lace  of  the  contrary  practice, 
equally  uniibrm  and  notorious,  of  ministers  of  these  various  Churches 

asceriain  their  mental  and  spiritual  qualifications  to  be  teachers  in  the  house  of  God,  than 
to  be  certified  of  the  fact,  in  the  most  unquestionable  manner,  that  the  y  had  been  or- 
dained by  a  council  of  Presbyters,  or  even  by  a  Prelate.  We  should  deem  the  latter  as  a 
circumstance  of  secondary  importance,  in  such  isolated  cases,  while  at  the  same  time  we 
should  hold  to  the  general  principle  of  ordination  by  Presbyiers.  And  we  can  cite  in 
support  of  the  correctness  of  this  position,  some  of  the  highest  dignitaries  of  the  Churcli 
of  England.  For  example — Archbishop  Whateley  quotes  Luther  as  saying— "  If  any 
pious  laymen  were  banished  to  a  desert,  and  having  no  regularly  consecrated  priest 
among  iliem,  were  to  agree  to  choose  for  that  office  one  of  their  number,  married  or  un- 
married, this  man  would  be  as  truly  a  priest  as  if  he  had  been  consecrated  by  all  the  Bi- 
shops in  the  world.  Augustine,  Ambrose,  and  Cyprian,  were  chosn  in  this  manner," 
&c.  Upon  this  Dr.  Whateley  remarlcs  :  "  It  way  be  needful  to  add,  that  if  in  a  Church 
thus  constituted,  on  in  any  other,  the  laity  are  admitted  to  share  in  the  government  of 
it,  and  to  the  ecclesiastical cjfices,  this  would  be  not  only  allowable,  but  wise  and  right." — 
Kingdom  of  Christ,  p.  275.  Archbishop  Cranmer  lield,  that  "  imposition  of  lianda  "  was 
not  necessary  to  be  performed  by  any  6»%— Prelate  or  Presbyters— in  order  to  conetilute 
a  valid  and  scriptural  oidination. 
*.\iiilfr'»  Letters,  p.  248. 


48  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

being  subjected  to  a  re-ordination  whenever  they  enter  the  ministry  of 
the  Episcopal  Church — the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee"  declares,  that  Pres- 
byterians maintain  the  same  "  exclusiveness  of  ministerial  authority"  as 
the  Episcopal  Church  ! ! ! 

We  now  leave  this  general  subject  of  Bisliop  Otey's  misrepresenta- 
tions to  the  candid  consideration  of  the  reader.  We  have  shown  his 
charge  of  "  exclusiveness"  against  us  to  he  false  injact,  as  all  the  world 
knew  before ;  while  we  have  exhibited  the  intolerant  and  exclusive 
position  taken  by  those  who  arrogate  to  themselves  the  name,  and  all 
the  blessings  and  privileges  of  "the  Church."  We  have  shown  his  at- 
tempted reasoning  to  suslam  this  charge,  to  be  fallacious.  And  we  have 
exposed  his  gross  abuse  of  the  Confession  of  Faith.  On  each  of  these 
points,  facts  and  principles  of  the  plainest  kind  and  great  notoriety,  con- 
fute him  at  every  turn.  If  any  one  can  peruse  what  has  been  here 
brought  to  view,  and  still  think  Bishop  Otey  a  man  of  candor— a  man 
whose  statements  in  conducting  a  theological  discussion  can  be  relied 
on— we  shall  have  no  controversy  with  him,  but  shall  ijeg  to  differ  from 
him  in  opinion.  It  is  a  serious  thing,  we  are  well  aware,  to  charge  a 
minister  of  the  Gospel  with  a  disregard  of  truth.  It  is  quite  as  se- 
rious to  give  any  JKst  occasion  for  it.  '1  he  case  before  us  is  so  plain, 
that  with  all  unprejudiced  men  there  can  be  but  one  opinion.  And  we 
confess  that  these  humiliating  developments  at  the  outset,  will  oblige  us 
to  take  his  further  statements  upon  this  general  subject  with  extreme 
caution. 

We  cannot  close  the  present  chapter  more  appropriately  than  in  the 
following  words  from  the  Bishop's  pamphlet : 

«'  It  gives  me  no  pleasure,  I  am  sure,  to  show  the  points  of  difference 
between  ourselves  and  other  denominations.  I  would  that  we  were  per- 
fectly joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and  judgment,  and  that  we  all 
spake  the  same  things.  But  when  points  of  difference  are  misunderstood 
and  especially  when  they  are  misrepresented,  silence  on  my  part  would 
be  an  unwortliy  abandonment  of  known  obligations — would  be  a  crimi- 
nal indifference  to  the  prevalence  of  error — and  a  disregard  of  your  most 
important  and  dearest  interests.  I  have  no  sympathy,  and  I  hope  you 
have  none,  with  that  mawkish  sensibility  which  fears  the  honest  declara- 
tion of  the  truth,  lest  it  make  others  feel  unpleasant  "* 

•  Discourses,  p.  41. 


CHAPTER  111. 

THE  CHIEF  POINTS  AT  ISSUE  BETWEEN  PRELATISTS  AND  OTHERSi 
DETERMINED  BY  AN  APPEAL  TO  SCRIPTURE. 

"  The  Bible,  I  say  the  Bible  only,  is  the  religion  of  Protestants." — Chiilinovtorth. 
"  If  God  be  for  us,  who  can  be  against  us  ?" — Paul. 

The  true  test  to  which  all  religious  systems  should  be  brought  is  the 
Word  of  God.  'i  he  system  which  that  supports  must  stand.  All  others 
should  be  abandoned.  It  Prelacy  have  its  foundation  in  the  Scriptures, 
and  can  be  supported  by  them  and  from  them  alone,  let  it  be  shown,  and 
we  will  acknowledge  our  obligations  to  conform  to  it.  If  on  the  contrary, 
we  find  that  Presbytery,  or  an  entire  oflicial  equality  among  the  clergy, 
be  the  principle  recognized  in  Scripture,  it  is  equally  our  duty  to  adopt 
that  system.  Whatever  the  system  of  Church  polity  which  the  Scrip- 
tures reveal  may  be,  however — whether  Prelacy,  or  Presbytery,  or  any 
other — non-prelatical  Churches  do  not  regard  a  departure  fiom  or  modifi- 
cation of  it,  as  necessarily  invalidating  ministerial  orders  and  destroying 
Church  organization.  That  is  a  consequence  which  is  chargeable  to  the 
account  of  Prelacy  alone. 

Thai  the  two  great  opposing  systems,  Presbytery  and  Prelacy,  may  be 
brought  to  the  test  of  Scripture,  we  propose,  in  this  chapter,  to  set  before 
the  reader  ihe  real  points  at  issue  between  them,  and  then  examine  the 
claims  of  each  to  a  support  from  the  word  of  God. 

The  essential  or  chief  points  of  prelatical  polity  are  as  follow:* 
1.  That  the  ministry  of  th.e  Christian  Church  was  originally  estab- 
lished in  three  orders,  as  at  present  exist  in  the  Episcopal  Church^for- 
merly  termed  1st.  AposUes,  2d.  Bishops,  Presbyters,  or  Elders,  3d. 
Deacons, — now  known  as  1st.  Hishops,  2d.  Priests,  3d.  Deacons;  and 
that  these  orders  are  obligatory  upon  the  entire  Church,  and  designed  to 
be  of  perpetual  duration. 

•  As  this  exhibition  will  doubtless  be  admitted  by  Episcopalians  as  just,  we  shall  not 
now  detain  the  reader  with  any  extended  quotntioi  s  to  prove  that  it  is  so.  Abundant 
proof  of  cachpoint  might  be  adduced. 


50  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

2.  That  Bisliops  are,  by  Divine  authority,  an  order  superior  to,  dis- 
tinct from,  and  have  powers  incompatible  with.  Presbyters. 

3.  That  originally  the  Apostles  possessed  and  exercised  the  sole  right 
to  ordain  men  to  the  ministry,  and  to  govern  the  Church  ;  and  that  Dio- 
cesan Bishops  or  Prelates  are  the  true  and  only  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles who  possess  valid  authority  to  exercise  these  functions. 

4.  That  no  ordination,  even  by  these  Prelates  can  be  valid,  unless  the 
ordainer  be  himself  a  legitimate  successor  of  a  legitimate  successor 
through  a  chain  of  Prelates  up  to  some  one  of  the  Apostles,  without  a 
break  or  flaw  in  a  solitary  link. 

5.  That  this  succession  is  a  personal  succession,  viz  : — that  it  may  be 
traced  through  a  historical  series  of  persons,  validly  ordained  as  Prelates, 
transmitting  in  an  unbroken  line  this  Episcopal  order  and  power  to  the 
present  time. 

6.  That  no  ministry  is  valid,  except  it  have  such  Episcopal  ordination ; 
(by  Diocesan  Bishops ;)  that  all  ordinances  and  sacraments  administered 
by  other  ministers  are  vain  and  worthless  ;  and  that  other  denominations 
of  Christians  who  have  not  a  prelatically  ordained  ministry  are  not 
Churches  of  Christ,  either  in  form  or  fact. 

Thus  far  the  system  of  Prelacy.  Now,  we  maintain  in  opposition  to 
these  propositions,  the  following,  as  the  main  points  of  our  system  : 

1.  That  the  ministry  of  the  Christian  Church,  as  to  all  its  character- 
istics which  were  ordinary  and  designed  to  be  perpetual,  was  originally 
established  in  one  order,  in  which  all  were  officially  equal,  designated,  in- 
discriminately, Elders  or  Presbyters,  Bishops,  &c.,  &c. ;  that  the  Apostles 
were  a  class  of  men  possessing  peculiar  and  extraordinary  powers  which 
were  not  designed  to  be  perpetuated,  and  in  the  exercise  of  their  ordinary 
functions  are  to  be  regarded  as  Presbyters  only ;  and  that  Deacons  were 
not  an  order  of  clergy,  but  were  appointed  to  attend  to  the  temporal  con- 
cerns of  the  Church. 

2.  That  Bishops  and  Presbyters  are,  by  Divine  authority,  the  same 
order,  and  possess  the  same   character  and  functions. 

3.  That  during  the  ministry  of  the  Apostles,  Presbyters  possessed  and 
exercised,  both  in  conjunction  with  them  and  alone,  the  right  to  ordain  to 
the  ministry,  and  to  govern  the  Church ;  and  that  consequently  Pres- 
byters now  possess  and  may  exercise  this  authority. 

4.  That  Presbyters  are,  therefore,  as  really  the  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles as  Diocesan  Bishops;  that  the  ordinations  performed  by  them  are 
equally  valid ;  and  consequently  that  the  ministry  of  all  the  Reformed 
Protestant  Churches  is  equally  valid  with  that  of  any  Diocesan  Episcopal 
Church. 


THE    SCRIPTURAL    BASIS.  51 

5.  That  such  an  unbroken  line  of  Diocesan  Bishops  as  is  claimed  by 
the  Episcopal  and  Romish  Churches  cannot  be  proved  to  exist;  but  the 
contrary,  that  such  a  line  does  not  exist,  can  be  proved. 

6.  That  a  succession  of  the  truth  of  doctrine,  of  the  pure  word  of 
God  producing  the  fruits  of  faith  and  holiness,  and  of  the  sacraments 
duly  administered,  is  the  only  material  succession  necessary  to  a  Chris- 
tian Church  ;  and  that  all  are  true  (Jhurches  of  Ciirist,  where  such  a 
ministry  and  such  ordinances  are  found. 

This  is  the  issue.  It  is  definite  and  comprehensible.  Bishop  Otey 
seems  to  agree  that  it  should  be  brought  to  the  test  of  Scripture.  He 
says  :  "  'i  he  grand  question  for  us  all  to  determine  is,  what  was  the  form 
of  government  established  in  the  primitive  Church-^was  it  Congrega- 
tional, Presbyterial,  or.  Episcopal?     Shall  we  appeal  to  Scripture?"* 

When  we  obnerved  this  passage  in  the  Bishop's  pamphlet,  we  felt  a 
glow  of  satisfaction,  on  two  accounts  ;  1st.  that  he  was  willing  to  submit 
his  system  to  the  scriptural  touchstone,  and  2d.  we  expected  to  find  a 
serious  endeavor  at  least,  to  sustain  the  scheme  of  Prelacy  by  a  scriptural 
argument.  But  we  had  not  read  far  before  we  were  disappointed  in  both 
respects.  Not  content  with  Divine  authority,  he  seeks  human  props  from 
the  Fathers.  And  in  the  use  which  he  does  make  of  Scripture,  there  is 
not  even  an  attempt  at  any  thing  worthy  of  being  dignified  by  the  name 
of  argument.  His  whole  eftbrt  in  this  particular  may  be  perfectly 
characterized  by  two  Avords — assumption  and  assertion.  That  the 
reader  may  see  this  and  be  satisfied  for  himself,  we  will  set  before  htm, 
though  at  considerable  length,  all  that  can  be  gathered  from  the  pamphlet 
bearing  upon  the  scriptural  argument.  We  have  changed  a  few  words  into 
italics  and  capitals,  and  have  inserted  some  of  our  own  in  brackets. 

In  the  Bishop's  second  discourse,  he  speaks  :  "  The  grand  question 
for  us  all  to  determine  is,  what  was  the  form  of  government  established  in 
the  primtive  church — was  it  Congregational,  Presbyterial,  or  Episcopal? 
Shall  we  appeal  to  Scripture  ?  We  read  of  Apostles — Elders— and  Dea- 
cons, and  it  is  agreed  that  these  orders  made  up  the  ministry  of  the  Church 
in  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  We  do  not  find  mention  once  made  of  ordi- 
nation by  a  congregation  or  by  a  council  of  Presbyters — [assertion,  de- 
nied,] on  the  contrary,  everywhere  the  ministerial  authority  is  conferred 
expressly  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Apostles — [assumption,] 
not  only  of  the  twelve,  but  of  Paul  and  Barnabas — of  Timothy  and  Titus, 
[assumed,  that  Barnabas,  Timothy  and  Titus  were  Apostles  like  the 
twelve.]  One  single,  solitary,  passage  occurs  where  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  Presbytery  is  mentioned.  And  even  in  that  case  we  do  not 
•Discourses,  p.  41. 


52  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

know  that  an  ordination  was  referred  to.  But  granting  that  it  was  au 
ordination,  it  seems  that  the  presence  and  action  of  an  Apostle  was 
[were  ?]  necessary  to  give  it  validity.  For  St.  Paul,  referring  to  the 
transaction,  let  the  authority  imparled  by  it,  be  what  it  may,  says  ex- 
pressly it  was  by  the  putting  on  of  his  hands.  'Jo  me  t  the  arguments 
of  Episcopalians  upon  this  subject,  drawn  from  the  plain  w.irrant  of 
Scripture  and  the  undoubted  practice  of  the  primitive  C  iurch,  it  is 
alleged  that  the  Apostles  were  extraordinary  officers  and  could  have 
no  successors — and  that  after  their  decease,  the  government  of  the 
Church  necessarily  devolved  upon  Presbyters.  All  this  ought  to  be 
proven.  We  cannot  consent  to  take  assertion  [!]  merely  for  argument. 
We  may  say  however,  in  passing,  that  neither  l)arnabas,  nor  Silas,  nor 
Junias,  nor  Andronicus,  nor  'J  imothy,  nor  Titus,  [more  assumed  to  be 
Apostles  in  the  sense  of  the  twelve]  appear  to  have  exercised  ai.y  ex- 
tranrdinary  powers — or  to  have  been  extraordinary  officers,  and  yet  arc 
they  called  Apostles — and  some  of  them  we  know  exercised  the  power 
of  ordination,  and  governed  the  Church."* 

In  the  third  discourse  of  the  series,  the  Bishop  thus  writes:  "  It  is 
not  denied  by  any,  so  far  as  I  know,  that  Christ,  after  his  resurrection 
and  previous  to  his  ascension  into  Heaven,  commissioned  the  eleven 
Apostles  to  gather  his  Church  and  settle  its  order  and  government. 
During  the  last  forty  days  of  his  continuance  upon  earth,  we  are  told,  he 
came  to  them  from  time  to  time,  giving  them  commandments,  and 
'speaking  of  the  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God.'  It  is  not 
to  be  supposed  in  reason,  then,  that  they  were  left  in  ignorance  as  to  the 
extent  if  their  powers,  or  as  to  the  order  of  administration  which  Christ 
would  have  established  in  his  Church.  Still  less  is  this  supposition 
reasonable  when  we  remember  that  the  Apostles  were  under  the  guidance 
of  that  Holy  Spirit  which  was  to  lead  them  into  all  truth,  and  to  bring  to 
their  remembrance  all  things  whatsoever  that  Jesus  had  said  unto  them. 
In  fulfilment  of  their  trust,  it  is  certain  tbat  they  in  a  public  manner  or- 
dained Matthias  in  the  place  of  Judas,  and  he  was  numbered  with  the 
eleven  Apostles.  Equally  clear  aud  certain  is  it,  that  others,  as  Paul  and 
Barnabas  and  Silas,  and  Timothy  and  'l"itus  and  James,  were  called 
Apostles — and  diat  they  exercised  the  powers  of  .Spostles  in  governing 
the  Church,  and  in  ordainmg  to  the  holy  ministry.  '1  hese,  therefore, 
according  to  the  express  language  ot  scripture,  constituted  the  first  or 
highest  order  of  the  gospel  ministry.  [This  takes  for  granted  the  very 
point  to  be  proved — that  the  >  poslles  were  a  higher  order  than  other 
ministers  in  the  exercise  of  ordinary  ministerial  functions.     It  is  a.f.vwmprf 

*  jOiscouraes,  pp.  4J ,  42. 


THE    SCRIPTURAL    BASIS.  5S 

that  they  ordained  and  governed  as  Apostles,  and  therefore  were  a  higher 
order !]  The  testimony  is  equally  direct  and  conclusive  as  to  the  con- 
stitution of  the  second  and  third  orders  of  the  ministry  viz  :  the  order  of 
Elders,  Bishops  or  Presbyters  as  thoy  are  interchangeably  termed  in 
the  IVew  Testament,  and  the  order  of  Deacons.     These  are  the  orders 

OF   THE    CHRISTIAN    MINISTRY    AS    UNQUESTIONABLY    ESTABLISHED    IN    THE 

DAYS  OF  THE  AposTLEs.  [The  foregoing  is  by  far  the  shortest  road  from 
the  starting  point  of  an  attempt  to  reason  the  case,  to  the  grand  and  com- 
placent conclusion  in  favor  of  a  "  three-fold  order  of  the  ministry,"  that 
we  have  ever  met  with.  It  indicates  the  "  march  of  mind."  This  is 
truly  a  great  age  !]  The  testimony  of  the  New  Testament  is  silent  as  to 
any  other  order  of  administration.  Its  canon  closes  with  this  arrange- 
ment, and  if  any  change  or  alteration  of  this  order  was  made,  the  evi- 
dence of  it  must  bo  sought  for  elsewhere  than  in  the  records  of  inspira- 
tion. The  assertions,  therefore,  that  Christ  and  his  Apostles  left  no  spe- 
cific directions  as  to  the  order  and  government  of  the  Church,  and  that 
the  whole  subject  was  left  open  to  the  exigencies  of  times  and  occasions, 
are  wholly  gratuitous — utterly  destitute  of  proof,  and  flatly  contradicted 
by  the  fact  that  Christ  continued  forty  days  with  the  A])ostles.  giving  them 
commandments,  and  speaking  of  the  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of 
God — and  by  the  fact,  also,  that  the  Apostles  did  admit  otliers  into  their 
number,  and  did  ordain  Presbyters  and  Deacons.  The  obscurity  and  lack 
of  precision  which  some  men  allege  to  be  thrown  around  the  order  and 
government  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  are  nothing  short  of  empty  pre- 
tences, and  are  about  as  available  to  excuse  their  irregularities  and 
schisms,  as  the  alleged  mysteries  of  faith  are  to  excuse  the  indifference 
and  sin  of  unbelief. 

"  The  three-fold  constitution  of  the  ministry  as  above  stated,  compos- 
ed of  Apostles,  Presbyters  and  Deacons  in  their  respective  orders,  we 
hold  to  be  the  form  of  Church  government  as  clearly  defined  in  the  New 
Testament.  As  it  was  established  by  Divine  authority  and  undeniably 
continued  till  the  canon,  and  of  course  the  testimony  of  sacred  Scripture, 
was  closed,  we  are  compelled  to  regard  it  as  of  perpetual  obligation,  and 
unchangeable,  until  authority  can  be  shown  to  alter  it. 

"  If  we  would  inquire  as  to  the  powers  which  these  three  orders  exer- 
cised respectively,  we  must  look  as  their  commissions  and  at  their  acts. 
As  to  the  Apostles,  we  find  that  thirteen  of  them  were  special  witnesses 
of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  They  were  chosen  for  that  specific 
purpose,  and  so  far  could  have  no  successors.  For  the  idea  of  witnesses 
having  successors   carries  absurdity  on  its  very  face.     They  may  be  co- 

H 


54  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

temporaueous  wilnesses  to  the  same  matters  of  lact,  as  the  live  hundred 
brethren  who  saw  Christ  alter  his  resurrection,  on  a  mountain  in  Galilee, 
were  with  the  Apostles  then  present,  witnesses  of  one  and  the  same 
fact.  But  to  bear  testimony  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  not  the 
only  duty  with  which  the  Apostles  were  charged.  If  we  turn  to  their 
commission  we  shall  see  that  they  were  specially  charged  to  preach  the 
Gospel  to  all  nations  and  to  baptise  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son 
and  Holy  Ghost.  Accordingly  we  find,  in  tracing  the  history  of  their 
acts,  that  they  not  only  testified  that  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead, 
but  also  preached,  and  baptised  for  the  remissions  of  sins,  and  that  they 
ordained  others  to  the  performance  of  tlie  like  oihces.  'J'hey  or  at  least 
a  portion  of  them,  possessed  also  the  power  of  conferring  the  miraculous 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the  imposition  of  their  hands.  Some  of  them 
also  were  endowed  with  the  spirit  of  prophecy.  In  these  things,  then, 
as  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ — as  prophets — as  bestowers 
of  miraculous  gifts,  their  office  was  extraordinary  and  as  such  they  had 
no  successors. 

"  But  it  is  remarkable  that  in  the  commission  given  to  the  Aposdes, 
which  was  antecedent  to  the  day  of  Pentecost  when  they  received  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost — no  reference  is  made  to  their  extraordinary 
powers.  The  tenor  of  their  commission  as  recorded  by  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  John  runs  thus:  '  All  power  is  given  to  me  in  Heaven  and  in  Earth. 
Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations  baptising  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  ahd  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Gliost,  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you,  and  lo  I  am  with  you 
alway  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.'  '  1  hen  said  Jesus  unto  them 
again,'  are  the  words  of  St.  John,  'Peace  be  unto  you:  As  my 
Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you  :  And  wlien  he  had  said  this  he 
breathed  on  them,  and  saith  unto  them.  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost: 
Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them,  and  whoseso- 
ever sins  ye  retain  they  are  retained.' 

"  These  last  words,  respecting  the  power  of  remitting  and  retaining 
sins,  are  generally  imderstood  as  conveying  the  power  of  discipline — of 
inflicting  and  removing  Cliurch  censures — a  power  claimed  and  exercised 
by  all  denominations  to  this  extent,  and  indeed  indispensable  to  the 
preservation  of  purity  and  order  in  any  society  whatever. 

"  The  commission  of  the  Apostles  sets  forth  that  they  are  to  preach — 
to  baptise — and  to  exercise  discipline.  And  certainly  so  far  at  least  no 
one  will  deny  that  they  may  and  ever  have  had  successors  in  office. — 
But  the  commission,  as  recorded  by  both  the  evangelists,  clearly  indicates 


4f 

THE   SCRIPTURAL   BASIS.  55 

that  they  were  invested  with  yet  higher  powers.  Besides  niakino- 
disciples  of  all  nations — which  is  regarded  as  a  more  correct  rendering, 
than  teaching  all  nations — ^and  baptising  them  ;  they  are  furthermore  to 
teach  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  Christ  had  commanded  — 
Now  as  these  things  whatever  they  were,  are  not  specifically  set  forth  in 
the  commission  itself,  it  seems  reasonable  to  conclude  that  we  must  search 
for  them  in  what  the  Apostles  taught  and  in  what  they  did.  They 
have  recorded  what  they  taught  and  what  they  did  also  :  at  least  to  a  suffi- 
cient extent,  we  must  suppose,  to  furnish  the  man  of  God  thoroughly 
iinto  every  good  word  and  work.  And  among  the  things  which  they 
did,  acting  under  Christ's  commission,  we  knoiv  that  they  ordained  to 
the  ministry,  [and  "  we  know,"  too,  that  some  who  were  not  Apostles 
"ordained  to  the  ministry,"]  and  in  so  doing  not  only  established  a 
precedent  for  those  whom  they  thus  ordained,  to  do  as  they  had  done, 
but  moreover  gave  express  directions  to  that  end.  '  The  things  that  thou 
hast  heard  of  me  among  many  witnesses,'  says  St.  Paul  to  'Jimothy 
'the  same  commit  thou,  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach 
others  also.' 

"  The  words  of  St.  John  in  recording  the  grant  of  authority  to  the 
Apostles,  convey  the  idea  of  still  more  ample  powers.  '  As  my  Father 
hath  sent  me,  even  so  I  send  you  ;'  and  then  breathing  on  them  said, 
*  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Whatever  may  be  made  out  of  these 
words,  no  one  will  deny  that  this  much  at  least  is  certain,  that  Christ  in- 
vests his  Apostles  with  full  power  and  authority  to  settle  the  order,  and 
administer  the  affairs  of  his  kingdom  on  earth.  Whatever,  then,  they 
taught,  and  commanded  in  pursuance  of  this  object,  we  hold  to  be  bind- 
ing upon  the  consciences  of  all  believers.  That  they  ordained  Elders 
is  not  denied — [The  impression  here  intended,  that  the  Apostles  only 
"  ordained  Elders,"  is  denied,  and  Bishop  Otey  knows  it.] — that  these 
Elders  ministered  in  the  Church  in  subordination  to  a  higher  order  of  the 
ministry  called  Apostles,  is  as  clear  as  any  other  fact  recorded  in  the  sa- 
cred writings — that  not  a  single  instance  of  the  Elders  exercising  the 
power  of  ordination  has  ever  been  clearly  made  out,  is  just  as  certain  as 
that  the  higher  or  Jlpostolic  order  did  exercise  that  power.  [This  pure 
assertion  has  one  merit.  It  is  an  easy  way  to  dispose  of  the  cases  which 
are  adduced  of  ordination  by  Presbyters.  Perhaps  with  the  "  Bishop  of 
Tennesee,"  it  is  the  only  way.]  That  the  Apostles  ordained  Deacons  is 
admitted — that  these  Deacons  both  preached  and  baptized,  and  so  far 
were  ministers,  stands  as  plainly  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  as 
any  thing  else  to  be  read  therein.     [Another  assumption — we  deny  it.] 


56  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

Here  then,  brethren,  in  the  ministry  of  tlie  Church  thus  constituted,  of 
Apostles,  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  is  that  Episcopacy  for  which  we  con- 
tend as  the  order  established  by  Divine  wisdom  in  Christ's  Kingdom  on 
earth.  Christ  said  he  would  be  with  the  Apostles  'always,  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world.'  Are  to  suppose,  then,  that  the  Apostles  lelt  the 
Church  destitute  of  a  ministry — that  they  left  the  whole  body  of  believers 
throughout  the  world,  in  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Ephesus,  Rome,  Corinth, 
and  a  hundred  other  places  where  they  had  planted  the  faith  of  the  gos- 
pel, in  an  unorganized  state — left  them  to  choose  a  ministry  and  ordain 
them  from  among  themselves — to  define  their  powers  and  settle  the  limits 
of  their  jurisdiction?  Such  a  supposition  lies  not  within  the  boundaries 
of  the  most  extravagant  credulity.  Jt  would  be  an  example  without  pre- 
cedent in  the  history  of  man.  It  n'as  a  thing  plainly  impossible  from  the 
very  nature  of  the  Christian  institution,  having  ordinances  to  be  adminis- 
tered, and,  by  necessary  consequence,  requiring  an  order  of  men  for  that 
purpose,  invested  with  power  and  authority  to  perpetuate  the  office  of 
administration."* 

The  above,  so  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  discover,  (with  the  excep- 
tion of  two  notes  which  will  be  examined  hereafter,)  is  all  that  Bishop 
Otey  brings  forward  as  the  Scripture  argument  for  Prelacy.  We  leave 
the  reader  to  judge  whether  it  may  not  in  the  main  be  properly  and  per- 
fectly characterized  by  the  two  words — assumption  and  assertion.  He 
takes  little  or  no  notice  of  the  denials  of  many  of  his  naked  assertions 
with  which  the  v/orks  of  opposing  writers  abound,  but  says  "  this  is  not 
denied"-— "  that  is  admitted" — "this  is  equally  certain" — "that  is  un- 
questionably so,"  &c.,  &c.  He  takes  as  little  notice  of  iheir  arguments 
and  objections,  but  conveys  the  impression  to  the  minds  of  his  less  in- 
formed and  confiding  readers,  that  as  this  is  "  admitted,"  that  "  not  de- 
nied," &c.,  they  of  course  have  no  real  arguments  to  present ! 

We  do  not  say  that  this  is  unfair  dealing  in  a  man  who  fills  the  sacred 
office  of  Christ's  ambassador:  it  is  more.  In  the  case  of  liishop  Otey 
it  is  little  less  than  virtual  perjury  before  high  heaven.  He  says  near 
the  close  of  his  second  discourse:  "1  have  no  respect  for  that  pretended 
liberality  of  opinion,  which  under  the  name  of  charity,  will  embrace  all 
professions  of  Christianity  as  equally  sound  branches  of  the  one  catholic 
Church  of  Christ — and  will  cast  into  the  shade  all  distinctive  principles 
as  non  essential  and  of  minor  consequence.  Christianity,  Brethren,' re- 
joiceth  in  the  truth,'  as  well  'as  hopeth  all  things,  and  endureth  all 
things.'     And  while  we  dare  not  pronounce  upon  the  character  of  those 


*  Discourses,  pp.  52-57. 


-2;  THE    SCRIPTURAL    BASIS.  57 

wlio  follow  unscriptaral  and  erroneous  systems — while  we  leave  tiiem  to 
llic  just  and  righteous  judgment  of  that  God  before  whom  we  must  all 
stand  at  last,  it  is  nevertheless  our  duty  to  show  them  their  error, 
to  lead  them  to  embrace  the  truth,  and  by  all  proper  means  aid  them 
to  attain  eternal  life.  Having  therejore  made  a  beginning  upon  this 
subject,  1  shall,  God  being  my  helper,  go  into  it  thoroughly  and 
leave  nothing  untouched  as  to  the  order,  doctrine  and  ivorship  of  the 
Churc'i,  ivhich  may  conduct  you  to  a  correct  understanding  of  her 
principles  and  your  07vn  correspondent  privileges  and  duties.^''* 

These  last  words  contain  a  comprehensive  pledge,  and  God  is  solemn- 
ly appealed  to,  to  aid  in  its  execution!  But  how  is  it  redeemed?  Is  it 
in  any  respect  fulfilled  by  declining  even  to  notice  opposing  arguments  ? 
by  thus  making  the  direct  impression  upon  many  minds  that  none 
worthy  of  notice  exist  ? — by  withholding  that  which  is  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  "  conduct  to  a  correct  understanding"  of  the  "order,  doctrine, 
and  worsliip  of  the  Church  of  Christ?  Is  this  solemn  pledge  met  by 
asserting  as  "  not  denied,"  and  as  "  admitted,"  &c.,  that  which  every 
tyro  in  this  controversy  knows  to  be  the  very  reverse  of  the  truth  ?  Is 
it  met  by  assuming  every  point  which  ought  to  be  provedl  Is  this  the 
prelalical  method  of  "leaving  nothing  untouched  which  may  conduct  to 
a  correct  understanding"  of  this  subject?  If  it  be,  for  one,  we  should 
fervently  pray,  in  the  language  of  the  prayer  book — from  such  luminous 
teaching,  and  from  such  false  promises' — "  Good  Lord,  deliver  us  "! 

Bishop  Otey  in  this  great  and  vital  point  of  the  whole  subject — the 
Scripture  argument — does  the  greatest  injustice  to  his  own  friends.  They 
look  up  to  him  as  their  spiritual  guide.  And  while  he  promises  them 
that  he  will  "  go  into"  the  subject  "  thoroughly,  and  leave  nothing  un- 
touched," he  yet  deals  out  his  naked  assertions  and  baseless  assumptions 
so  bountifully,  with  a  studious  silence  of  opposing  arguments,  that  one  can 
scarcely  avoid  believing,  that  after  all,  the  Bishop  fancies  that  his  mere  ipse 
dixit  will  be  deemed  sufficient  by  his  readers  to  lead  them  to  a  "  correct 
understanding"  of  the  great  points  at  issue.  Now  if  Episcopalians  are 
willing  thus  to  yield  a  stupid,  blind  submission  to  prelatical  dictation,  be 
it  so — we  have  nothing  to  say.  We  can  only  pity  their  credulity.  But 
we  have  thought  it  well,  in  passing,  just  to  remind  them  that  their  Bishop 
has  not  made  good  his  solemn  pledge.  Nor  do  we  wish  them  to  take 
our  mere  say-so  for  it.  We  shall  endeavor  to  make  it  appear  palpable, 
by  exhibiting  the  scrip!ural  argument  on  this  subject.     Whfn  this  is 


'  Discourses,  pp  44,  45. 


58  PRELACY    EXAMINED.  ,•^'■■ 

duly  weighed,  it  may  lead  unprejudiced  readers  "  a  correct  understand- 
ing" which  may  be  different  from  the  conclusions  to  which  the  Bisliop's 
mere  assumptions,  if  followed,  would  conduct  them.  A  pointed  saying 
of  the  celebrated  Edmund  Burke  is  worth  remembering  here.  "  Let 
us,"  says  Burke,  "  only  suffer  any  person  to  tell  us  his  story,  morning 
and  evening,  but  for  one  tw^elve-month,  and  he  will  become  our  master." 

Before  proceeding  to  an  examination  of  the  Scriptures,  it  may  be  well 
to  show,  by  a  few  quotations,  what  value  many  prelatical  writers  assign 
to  Divine  testimony  on  this  whole  subject.  We  have  said  that  the  scrip- 
tural argument  of  Bishop  Otey  (and  we  have  given  it  in  full,)  consists  of 
assumptions  and  assertions.  But  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennesee"  does  not 
stand  alone  in  this  sorry  predicament.  Other  writers  of  his  own  Cliurch, 
more  renowned  than  he,  enjoy  the  same  enviable  distinction.  Perhaps, 
however,  they  may  all  be  pardoned  for  not  even  attempting  to  reason  the 
case.  It  is  a  tacit  admission  that  no  sufficient  argument  from  the  Scrip- 
tures can  be  adduced  in  their  favor.  They  must,  therefore,  abandon  the 
word  of  C4od  altogether,  or  be  content  with  at  once  taking  for  granted, 
without  argument,  that  the  form  of  prelatical  polity  is  taught  there.  But 
we  shall  pass  these  men  by,  for  the  sake  of  noticing  another  class,  more 
candid  than  they,  who  say,  directly,  that  no  par tiadar  form  of  Church 
polity  is  clearly  laid  doion  in  the  Scriptures.  Here  are  their  ac^ 
knowledgments : 

Dr.  Dodwell  says  :  "  The  sacred  writers  nowhere  professedly  explain 
the  offices  or  ministries  themselves,  as  to  their  nature  or  extent,  which 
surely  they  would  have  done  if  any  particular  form  had  been  presented 
for  perpetual  duration."* 

Bishop  Bcveridge  acknowledges  the  same:  '■'■Nothing,''''  says  he, 
"  can  be  determined  from  Avhat  the  Apostles  did  in  their  early  proceedings 
in  preaching  the  gospel,  as  to  the  establishment  of  any  certain  form  of 
Church  government  for  perpetual  duration.^^l 

Another  Episcopal  writer  says  :  "  'Ihere  is  no  part  of  the  ecclesiastial 
system  which  is  not  faintly  traced  in  Scripture,  and  no  part  which  is 
much  more  than  faintly  traced.  It  is  granted  that  the  Pivine  right  of 
Episcopacy,  the  Apostolical  succession,  the  power  of  the  Church,  &c., 
are  wanting  j'n  direct  or  satisfactory  proof.  Every  one  must  allow  that 
there  is  next  to  nothing  on  the  surface  of  Scripture  about  them,  and  very 
little  even  under  the  surface,  of  a  satisfactory  character. "J 

*  De  Niipero  Schismate,  as  quoted  by  Powell. 

T  As  cited  by  rowell. 

J  Oxford  Tracts,  Nos.  8  and  85. 


THE   SCRIPTURAL  BASIS.  59 

This  testimony  will  suffice,  though  much  more  to  the  same  purpose 
is  at  hand.  It  is  thus  manifest,  that  many  distinguished  advocates  of 
Prelacy  directly  insist,  that  no  particular  form  of  Church  government 
is  clearly  laid  down  in  the  Scriptures,  or  none  at  least  intended  to  be  un- 
changeable. Now  all  the  advantage  we  wish  to  take  of  this  expression 
of  sentiment  is  this  :  It  is  an  acknowledgment  that  the  prelaticalforrri 
cannot  be  proved  from  the  Scriptures.  'J'his  fair  consequence  will  of 
course  be  granted.     Hence  the  cry — "  to  the  Fathers." 

Another  class  of  Prelatists,  with  some  show  of  argument  at  least,  do 
attempt  to  maintain  from  the  Scriptures,  the  chief  points  of  the  prelatical 
scheme  as  drawn  out  in  the  foregoing  specifiations.  We  shall  give  a 
respectful  atttention  to  their  reasonings,  and  submit  to  the  reader  the 
decision  whether  their  scheme  or  ours  has  the  better  claim  to  be  founded 
on  Divine  nuthority.* 

Section  1. — Parity  of  the  Ministry  shown  from  the  Ministerial 

Commission. 
The  first  and  fundamental  principles  advanced  on  each  side,  are  as  follow: 

Prelatists  maintain — 

1.  That  the  ministry  of  the  Christian  Church  was  originally  establish- 
ed in  three  orders,  as  at  present  exist  in  the  Episcopal  Church — formerly 
termed  1st  Apostles,  2d  Bishops,  Presbyters,  or  Elders,  3d  Deacons — 
now  known  as  1st  Bishops,  2d  Priests,  3d  Deacons;  and  that  these 
orders  are  obligatory  upon  the  entire  Church,  and  were  designed  to  be 
of  perpetual  duration. 

On  the  other,  hand  we  maintain— 

1.  That  the  ministry  of  the  Christian  Church,  as  to  all  its  character- 
istics which  were  ordinary  and  designed  to  be  perpetual,  was  originally 
established  in  one  order,  in  which  all  were  officially  equal ;  designated  in- 
discriminately, Elders  or  Presbyters,  Bishops,  &c.,  &c.;  that  the  Aposlles 
were  a  class  of  ministers  possessing  peculiar  and  extraordinary  powers 
which  were  not  designed  to  be  perpetuated,  and  in  the  exercise  of  their 
ordinary  functions  are  to  be  regarded  as  Presbyters  only  ;  and  that  Dea- 
cons were  not  an  order  of  clergy,  but  were  appointed  to  attend  to  the 
temporal  concerns  of  the  Church. 

This  is  a  plain  issue.  To  determine  it,  we  appeal  "  to  the  law  and  to 
the  testimony." 

*  By  rpferring  to  the  fbregning  propositions  it  will  be  perceived  that  some  of  them  re- 
late to  matters  purely  iiistorical— such  as  the  evidence  pro  or  con  touching  the  Apos- 
tolical succession,  &c.,  ()tc.  The  consid<.'ratlon  of  these  will  be  reserved  to  a  future 
chapter.  Those  only  wii!  be  noticed  here  which  may  be  supported  out  of  the  Scriptures 
alone. 


60  PRELACY    EXAMIJVED. 

In  support  of  the  above  proposition,  which,  as  first  in  order,  we  advance 
against  the  Prelatists,  our  position  is — 

That  Christ  gave  but  one  general  commission  for  the  office  of  the 
ministry. 

Our  conclusion  from  this  position,  is — 

That  this  commission  constituted  but  one  order  of  ministers,  in  all 
respects  officially/  equal. 

Whether  the  premise  be  true,  and  the  conclusion  be  legitimate,  the  se- 
quel will  perhaps  show. 

Both  parties  to  the  present  controversy  agree  that  all  true  ministers  of 
the  Gospel  in  every  age,  act  under  the  authority  of  a  commission  given 
by  Christ  to  the  primitive  ministry.  It  is  commonly  agreed  that  there  is 
but  one  general  commission.  Bishop  Otey,  it  is  true,  assumes  that  each 
of  the  three  orders  of  Prelacy  has  its  separate  or  specivil  commission. 
He  says,  in  the  extract  already  given:  "  If  we  would  inquire  as  to  the 
powers  which  these  three  orders  exercised  respectively,  we  must  look  at 
their  commissions,  and  at  their  acts."  lie  does  not,  however,  tell  us 
where  these  several  commissions  are  to  be  found.  lie  cites  the  one  and 
only  general  commission  which  Christ  gave.  We  challenge  him  to  pro- 
duce from  the  Scriptures  the  three  several  "  commissions  "  under  which 
the  "three  orders  exercised  respectively"  their  "powers.  "  If  he  will 
bring  them  forth,  he  will  certainly  render  a  most  essential  service  to  his 
cause,  and  they  will  deserve  a  place  in  our  theological  cabinets  as  a  lite- 
rary curiosity. 

There  is  one  general  commission  for  the  ministry  which  all  agree  sets 
forth  their  powers.  It  was  given  by  Christ  to  the  Apostles,  and  through 
them  to  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel  in  all  subsequent  time.  It  is  re- 
corded by  the  Evangelists  as  follows :  "  And  Jesus  came  and  spake 
unto  them,  saying.  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  on  earths 
Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  :  and  lo,  1  am  with  you  al- 
way,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.  Amen."*  "  Then  said  Jesus  to 
them  again.  Peace  be  unto  you  :  as  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send 
I  you.  And  when  he  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on  them,  and  saith  unto 
them.  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whose  soever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are 
remitted  unto  them,  and  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained."! 

This  commission,  as  all  acknowledge,  was  originally  given  to  one  order 

*  Matthew  28  :  18,  19,  20,  t  John  20  :  21,  22,  23. 


THi:    SCRIPTURAL    BASIS.  61 

of  ministers  only,  the  eleven  ^fiposiles.  Bisliop  Oley  admits  this  in  the 
passage  ah-cady  quoted.  To  these  eleven,  confessedly  of  the  same  rank, 
Christ  committed,  for  the  time,  the  whole  ministerial  authority  of  His 
Church.  This  commission,  therefore,  originally,  constituted  but  one  or- 
der of  ministers. 

Now  it  is  admitted  and  contended  on  all  hands,  that  full  ministerial 
authority  is  granted  by,  and  embraced  in,  this  commission — that  is, 
authority  to  preach,  to  administer  the  sacraments,  and  to  ordain  others 
to  the  ministerial  office,  liishop  Otey  contends  for  all  this.  It  is  also 
univcrsall}'  contended  that  this  commission  did  not  expire  with  the  Apos- 
tles, but  was  intended  to  be  perpetual,  as  authorizing  the  ministry  of 
every  subsequent  age.  Of  course,  then,  the  powers  which  it  conveys 
were  not  only  granted  to  the  original  eleven  Apostles,  but  also  to  those 
who  should  succeed  them  in  the  ministry  through  all  future  time. 

'i  he  question  then  arises,  Who  are  these  successors  ?  Who  have 
succeeded  the  eleven  Apostles  in  authority  to  exercise  those  functions 
which  this  commission  points  out  ?  This  is  the  grand  question,  and  the 
whole  case  turns  upon  the  answer,  which  is  this  :  Those  who  are  now 
authorized  to  perform  the  ditties  set  forth  in  this  commission,  are  the 
true  successors  of  the  eleven  to  whom  it  was  originally  given.  What 
are  those  duties  ?  To  preach — "  teaching  all  things,  "  &c.;  to  admini- 
ster the  sacraments — "  baptizing  them,  "  &c,;  and  to  exercise  govern- 
ment and  discipline — "  whose  soever  sins  ye  remit,  "  &c.  These  are 
all  the  functions  which  are  expressly  stated.  It  is  admitted  by  all,  that 
the  power  to  ordain  is  implied,  because  the  ministry  was  to  be  perpe- 
tuated "  to  the  end  of  the  world.  " 

Now,  who  are  authorized  to  perform  these  duties  or  functions  ? — that 
is,  to  preach,  administer  the  sacraments,  ordain,  &c.?  And  who,  by 
necessary  consequeiice,  have  succeeded  the  Aposdes  in  this  authority  ? 

\V  e  answer :  1.  Those  persons  ivho  are  authorized  to  exercise  any 
ONE  of  these  functions,  are  empowered  to  perform  all.  This  position 
is  impregnable,  unless  it  can  be  shown,  (1.)  That  the  commission  points 
out  some  distinction  of  rank  or  grade  in  the  one  order  which  it  consti- 
tuted, (a  supposition  which  would  be  absurd,)  and  distributes  its  powers 
among  the  several  grades ;  or,  (2.)  That  it  conveys  authority  to  this  one 
order  to  institute  other  orders  and  distribute  the  various  powers  among 
them  all,  respecting  v/hich  there  is  not  the  remotest  allusion.  We  re- 
peat, then,  that  as  this  commission  hints  at  no  distinction  of  rank  in  those 
who  were  to  act  under  it,  and  recognizes  no  precedence  in  any  of  the 

I 


G-2  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

several  powers  which  it  conveys,  therefore,  those  who  are  authorized  to 
perform  ani/  one  of  its  functions,  are  empowered  to  perform  uU. 

We  answer:  2.  Prksbyters  are  empowered  by  this  commission  to 
exercise  all  its  functions.  This  is  proved,  (1.)  By  the  admission  of  our 
opponents,  who  grant  that  Presbyters  may  exercise  two  of  the  powers 
conveyed — preaching,  and  administering  the  sacraments  ;  but  if  two,  or 
even  one,  they  may,  by  the  terms  of  the  foregoing  proposition,  perform 
all,  as  authority  to  perform  one  necessarily  includes  authority  to  perform 
all.  It  is  proved,  (2.)  By  the  fact  that  the  two  functions  which  it  is  ad- 
mitted Presbyters  may  exercise,  are  the  more  important  powers.  'Ihe 
other  is  but  a  means  to  a  far  more  important  end.  'ihe  great  and  para- 
mount ministerial  duty  which  the  Scriptures  always  hold  up,  is  proclaim- 
ing the  everlasting  Glospel  and  administering  the  sacraments.  Induction 
to  the  ministerial  office  is  but  an  insignificant  means  to  this  grand  end, 
and  considered  as  such,  is  far  less  important.  Those,  therefore,  who 
may  exercise  the  former  duties  are  authorized  to  perform  the  latter.  The 
greater  must  always  include  the  less. 

From  the  foregoing  propositions,  we  therefore  conclude, 

1.  That  Presbyters  are  duly  authorized  to  preach,  administer  the 
sacraments,  and  ordain  others  to  the  ministry — in  a  word,  to  exercise  all 
duties,  privileges,  and  functions,  which  any  ministers  of  the  Gospel  may 
do,  acting  under  the  authority  of  this  commission. 

2.  That  those  who  have  been  ordained  by  Presbyters  have  been  duly 
ordained,  and  are  clothed  with  full  authority  to  exercise  every  ministerial 
power. 

3.  That,  therefore.  Presbyters  are  true  sr.ccessors  of  the  Apostles,  in 
all  things  pertaining  to  their  office  which  were  ordinary  and  designed  to 
be  perpetual. 

These  conclusions  we  deem  fully  authorized  so  far  as  the  character  of 
the  general  mmisterial  commission  is  concerned,  from  which  alone  the 
ministry  in  all  ages  derive  their  authority. 

Bishop  Otey,  indeed,  as  inclination,  or  habit,  or  n?cessity  prompts  him, 
assumes  that  ordination  is  a  "  hisher  power  "  than  any  other  function  re- 
cognized by  this  commission.  His  words  are  these,  as  belore  given  :  "  The 
commission  of  the  Apostles  sets  forth  that  they  are  to  preach,  to  baptise, 
and  to  exercise  discipline.  And  certainly,  so  far  at  least,  no  one  will  deny 
that  they  may  and  ever  have  had  successors  in  office,  [granted]  But 
the  commission  as  recorded  by  both  the  Evangelists,  clearly  indicates 
that  they  were  invested  with  yet  higher  powers."  A  little  further  on  he 
tplls  us  that  these  "  higher  powers"  consisted  in  ordaining  others  to  the 


THE  SCRIPTURAL  BASIS.  6S 

ministry.  Now  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  the  power  to  ordain  is 
conveyed  in  this  commission  by  implication.  But  ,that  it  is  a  "  higher 
power"  than  those  expressly  named,  is  denied;  and  we  pronounce  the 
declaration  affirming  it  an  unwarranted  assumption,  and  challenge  Bishop 
Otey  to  produce  any  authority  for  it  in  the  word  of  God.  The  contrary 
is  not  only  intimated  in  the  Scriptures,  but  is  expressly  asserted  as  the 
judgment  of  some  of  the  most  distinguished  divines  of  the  Episcopal 
Church. 

From  several  considerations,  this  statement  of  Bishop  Otey  is  mani- 
festly contrary  to  the  word  of  God :  1,  The  Scriptures  nowhere  ex- 
pressly state  that  ordination  is  a  "  higher  power."  2.  Ordination,  as  re- 
gards its  nature,  or  as  to  particular  cases,  is  very  seldom  mentioned  in  the 
Scriptures,  comp  red  to  ihe  frequency  with  which  the  other  ministerial 
fuMciiojis  are  stated,  explained,  enjoined  and  enlarged  upon.  3.  Ordina- 
tion is  but  a  means  to  a  more  important  end — proclaiming  the  word  of 
eternal  life,  &c.  4.  Paul  and  the  other  sacred  writers  dwell  with  great 
minuteness  and  detail  upon  the  great  duties  of  faith,  repentance,  holiness, 
jusiifica'ion,  (fee,  wliich  enter  into  the  subject  matter  of  preaching,  while 
verj'  little  is  said  about  ordin  ition.  We  may  fairly  infer,  therefore,  from 
these  plain  and  deci-ive  intimations  of  Scripture,  that  they  do  not  sanc- 
tion the  idea  that  ordination  is  a  "higlier  power "  than  the  others,  but 
that  if  any  distinction  is  warranted,  it  is  a  lower  or  lees  important  power. 

The  same  judgment  is  given  by  distinguished  Episcopal  divines.  To 
mention  one.  Bishop  Burnet,  in  opposition  to  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennes- 
see," says:  "  Since  I  look  upon  the  sacramental  actions  as  the  highest 
of  sacred  performances,  I  cannot  but  acknowledge  those  who  are  era- 
powtred  for  them  must  be  of  the  highest  office  in  the  Church."* 

It  is  evidently,  then,  a  pure  and  unsustained  assumption  of  Bishop 
Otey,  that  ordination  is  a  "  higher  power"  than  the  others  conveyed  by 
this  commission.  But  we  are  not  surjn-ised  that  he  should  assume  this. 
As  ii.  his  treatment  of  the  scriptural  bearings  upon  the  general  subject, 
he  takes  the  whole  for  granted,  we  must  of  course  expect  him  to  take  the 
parts. 

From  all  that  has  now  been  said  respecting  the  nature,  design,  extent, 
powers  and  perpetuity  of  the  foregoing  ministerial  commission,  we  think 
we  are  fully  warranted  in  the  conclusion  previously  stated — that  as  Christ 
gave  hut  one  general  commission  for  the  office  of  the  ministry,  as  this 
commission  was  delivered  originally  to  but  one  order  in  all  respects  of- 
ficially equal,  as  the  powers  conveyed  by  it  were  designed  to  be  perpetu- 
*  Vindication  of  the  Cluircli  and  Stntc  of  Scotland. 


64  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

ated,  so  the  successors  of  those  originally  constituted  were  designed  to 
be  but  one  order  in  all  respects  of  equal  official  authority, — and  conse- 
quently all  who  are  authorized  by  this  commission  to  perform  any  one  of 
its  powers,  are  comprehended  in  this  order. 

Section  2. — Identity  of  Bishops  and  Presbyters. 

The  next  points  in  order  of  the  two  opposing  systems  are  as  follow  : 

Frelatists  maintain — 

2.  That  Bishops  are,  by  Divine  authority,  an  order  superior  to,  distinct 
from,  and  have  powers  incompatible  with,  Presbyters. 

3.  That  originally  the  Apostles  possessed  and  exercised  the  sole  right 
to  ordain  men  to  the  ministry,  and  to  govern  the  Church  ;  and  that  Di- 
ocesan Bishops  or  Prelates  are  the  true  and  only  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles, who  possess  valid  authority  to  exercise  these  funclionSo 

Wc  maintain,  on  the  contrary — 

2.  That  Bishops  and  Presbyters  are,  by  Divine  authority,  the  same  or- 
der, and  possess  the  same  character  and  functions. 

3.  That  during  the  ministry  of  the  Apostles,  Presbyters  possessed  and 
exercised,  both  in  conjunction  with  them  and  alone,  the  right  to  ordain  to 
the  ministry,  and  to  govern  the  Church  ;  and  that  consequently,  l^resby- 
ters  now  possess,  and  may  exercise  this  authority. 

Our  first  argument  in  support  of  the  above  propositions  which  we  advo- 
cate, is,  that 

I.  The  TERMS  Bishop  and  Presbyter  are  invariably  employed  in  the 
Scriptures,  as  interchangeable  or  convertible  titles  for  the  same  office. 

From  this  unvarying  usage,  we  argue. 

That  Bishop  and  Presbyter  must  be,  by  Divine  authority,  the  same 
order  and  tniist  possess  the  same  official  character  and  functions. 

Before  presenting  any  direct  argument  in  support  of  the  above  position, 
it  may  be  well  to  show,  that  the  point  immediately  before  us  is  conceded 
by  many  of  the  most  distinguished  Episcopal  writers  on  both  sides  of 
the  Atlantic.  They  freely  admit  that  the  terms  Presbyter  and  Bishop 
are  used  in  the  Scriptures  as  convertible  titles,  though  some  of  them  deny 
that  this  proves  that  Presbyter  and  Bishop  were  the  same  in  official  rank. 
Some  of  the  following  writers,  however,  admit  that  they  were  the  same 
in  rank,  also.     Let  us  hear  them. 

Dr.  Whitby  says:  "Both  the  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers  (the  Dr.  cites 
them  to  confirm  his  own  opinion,)  do  with  one  consent  declare,  that 
Bishops  were  called  Presbyters,  and  Presbyters  Bishops,  in  Apostolic 
times,  the  names  being  then  common."*     Dr.  Hook  :  "  lie  whom  we  now 

*  Notes  on  riiil.  I  :  1. 


THE    SCRIPTURAL    BASIS.  65 

call  a  Presbyter  or  Priest,  was  frequently  styled  in  the  New  Testament, 
a  Bishop.''*  Dr.  Hammond:  "The  word  Presbyter  was  fitly  made 
use  of  by  the  Apostles  and  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  and  ajffix- 
ed  to  the  governors  of  the  Christian  Church.  In  the  Scripture  it  be- 
longs principally,  if  not  alone,  to  Bishops."!  Bishop  McCoskry: 
"  Jill  that  is  now  said  of  Bishops  in  the  New  Testament  is  to  be 
regarded  as  belonging  to  those  who  were  designated  by  the  term 
Elder  or  Presbyter."!  Bishop  Onderdonk :  "It  is  proper  to  advert 
to  the  fact  ihat  the  name  Bishop  whicli  now  designates  the  highest 
grade  of  the  ministry  is  not  appropriated  to  that  ofBce  in  Scripture. 
That  name  is  there  given  to  the  middle  order,  or  Presbyters ;  and  all 
tliat  we  read  in  the  Aew  Testament  concerning  Bishops,  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  pertaining  to  that  middle  grade.  "  §  Dr.  Bayard  of  New 
York:  " '1  he  name  of  Bishop  and  that  of  Elder  or  Presbyter,  were 
promiscuously  used  for  the  same  office  in  Scripture."  ||  Bishop  Ho- 
bart :  "  It  is  granted  that  Bishop  and  Presbyter  in  the  New  Testament 
were  used  as  names  for  the  same  office,  generally  that  which  we  now 
call  the  order  of  Priests."  ^ 

Instances  of  the  like  admission  might  be  multiplied,  but  the  above  are 
sufficient  to  show  the  fact. 

Bishop  Otey  admits  that  the  names  Bishop  and  Presbyter  are  common 
in  Scripture,  but  seems  to  deny  that  they  indicate  the  same  office.  Hfi 
says  :  "  It  is  freely  admitted  by  Episcopalians  that  these  terms  are  thus 
interchangeably  u?ed  in  the  New  Testament.  The  admission  is  im- 
proved  into  an  argument  in  the  hands  of  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy, 
who  most  preposterously  argue  from  a  community  of  names  to  a  com- 
munity in  rank  or  order.  "**  Nay,  good  sir,  the  "  argument"  is  made 
ready  to  our  hand.  If  the  admispion  of  Dr.  Bayard,  that  these  names 
"were  promiscuously  used  for  the  same  office'" — if  the  admission  of 
Bishops  Onderdonk  and  McCoskry,  that  "  all  that  is  said  of  Bishops  in 
the  New  Testament  is  to  be  regarded  as  belonging  to  Presbyters  " — if 
the  admission  of  Bishop  Hobart,  that  "  Bishop  and  Presbyter  in  the 
New  Testament  were  used  as  names  for  the  same  office" — if  these  and 
sundry  other  similar  admissions  too  numerous  to  mention,  be  not  equiva- 
lent to  the  full  concession,  that  in  b'cripture,  the  use  of  the  terms  Bishop 
and  Presbyter  plainly  indicate  a  "  community  in  rank  or  order,  "  as  well 
as  a  community  in  name — verily,  it  is  so  like  it,  that  we  shrewdly  sus- 

•liermon  on  the  Church.  t  Works  on  Episcopacy. 

t  Sermon  "  Ep.  Bishop?,  "  &c.  »>  Epi?copncy  trslcd  by  .Scripture. 

II  Encyclop.  Relig.  Know!.  Art.  Bishop.  IT  Cnmp.  lor  tiic  I'Vsf,  and  Fasts. 
**  Discourset^,  p.  '•'!,  Nolo. 


66  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

pect  that  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee  "  could  not  well  avoid  perceiving 
the  resemblance,  were  he  not  too  thoroughly  opinionated.  As  one  has 
well  remarked :  "  I  never,''  said  Jack  of  Lord  l^eter's  brown  bread, 
"  saw  a  piece  of  mutton  in  my  life,  so  nearly  resembling  a  slice  from  a 
ten  penny  loaf!  " 

But  some  prelatical  writers  go  much  further  in  their  concessions  touch- 
ing the  scriptural  use  of  these  terms.  To  give  a  single  examph-.  Bishop 
Croft  declares  that  if  any  distinction  is  allowable,  Presbyter  is  a  term  of 
higher  import  than  Bishop;  and  if  we  determine  the  point  by  an  appeal 
to  the  original  meaning  of  the  terms,  his  view  would  seem  to  be  correct, 
the  term  Presbyter  being  expressive  of  authority,  and  the  term  Bishop  of 
duty.  Bishop  Croft  says:  "And  I  desire  you  to  observe,  that  of  those 
two  names.  Presbyter  and  Bisiiop,  if  there  be  any  dignity  and  eminency 
expressed  in  one  more  than  the  other,  sure  it  is  in  the  name  of  Presbyter, 
not  Bishop;  because  the  Apostles  themselves,  and  the  chief  of  the  Apos- 
tles, (as  some  would  have  it  who  stand  highest  on  their  panlables,)  are,  in 
Scripture,  styled  Presbyters,  or  Elders,  as  the  word  in  our  English  trans- 
lation signifies,  but  never  Bishops,  as  I  remember.  And  therefore,  1  can- 
not but  wonder  why  that  haughty  head  of  the  Papists  should  not  assume 
to  himself  the  title  of  his  pretended  predecessor ,  St.  Peter,  Presbyter, 
rather  than  Bishop,  unless  it  be  by  God's  Providential  disposure,  to  show 
his  blindness  in  this  as  well  as  in  other  things,  and  make  him  confute 
himself  by  this  name  of  Bishop,  which  was  never  given  to  St.  Peter  np 
more  than  St  Peter  gave  unto  him  the  headship  of  the  Church."* 

It  is  fnlly  conceded,  then,  by  the  most  eminent  prelatical  writers,  that 
Presbyter  and  Bishop  are  terras  of  at  least  the  same  import  in  the  New 
Testament.  If  any  person  wishes  to  see  that  they  have  the  utmt^st  good 
reason  for  the  admission  let  him  examine,  in  the  original,  the  following 
passages.  Paul  in  addressing  the  Elders  of  \  phesiis  styles  them  Bi- 
shops: "And  from  Aiilelus  he  sent  to  Ephesus  and  called  the  Elders 
(fovj  rtpfojau-rspors)  of  the  Church  And  when  they  were  come  to  him,  he 
said  unto  them.  Ye  know  from  the  first  day  that  I  came  into  Asia,  af  er 
what  manner  I  have  been  with  you,"  &;c.  Proceeding  with  the  address 
he  says  to  these  same  Elders :  "  Take  heed  therefore  unto  yourselves,  and 
to  all  the  flock,  ovRr  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  Over- 
seers,'''' (irttctxortoo;?)  &LC.,  that  is,  BishopsA  The  follow  ng  passage  is  so 
clearly  in  point  that  the  mere  readi  r  of  the  English  text  can  perceive  that 
the  words  Bishop  and  Presbyter  or  i';lder  must  mean  the  same  persons : 
"For  this  cause  I  left  thee  in   Crete,  that  thou  shouldst  set  in  order  the 

*  Tr-je  g'».'e  of  the  Prim.  Church,  as  cited  by  several  authors. 

i  Acfp.CO:  17,  28 


THE   SCKIPTURAL  liASIS.  67 

things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  Elders  {ftpta^vts^wi)  in  every  city 
as  I  had  appointed  thee :  if  any  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife, 
having  faithful  children,  not  accused  of  riot,  or  unruly;  for  a  Bishop 
(trt(.'(jseorto»/)MU-T  be  blameless,  as  the  steward  of  God."  &c.  * 

'I'hus  it  is  manifest  that  Kpiscopalians  have  the  best  of  reasons  for 
admitting  the  identity  of  the  terms  Presbyter  and  Bishop,  in  Scripture 
usage,  and  some  as  we  have  seen  admit  the  identity  of  rank. 

Now  all  the  advantage  we  wish  to  take  of  this  concession  of  a  "com- 
munity of  nam  s,"  is  this :  We  deem  it  quite  sufficient  to  settle  the 
point,  that  Bishop  and  Presbyters  are,  by  Divine  authority,  the  same. 
order,  and  consequently  possess  the  same  office,  character  and  duties. 
But  we  do  not,  as  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee"  supposes,  esteem  this 
concession  so  highly  as  even  to  wish  to  "  improve  it  into  an  argument." 
Ko.  We  will  frame  an  argument  ourselves,  and  reason  from  \he  fact 
here  admitted,  and  show  inconlestably  from  the  uniform,  unique,  Scrip- 
ture use  alone,  of  these  terms,  that  an  identity  of  rank  and  office  in  the 
persons  to  whom  they  are  applied  must  follow. 

Chir  argument  is  concisely  this  If  the  sacred  writers  viewed  the 
office  or  lank  of  Bishops  as  being  essentially  superior  to  tliat  of  I'resby- 
ters  in  the  same  light  that  Prelatists  do,  we  should  expect  to  find  them 
mark  this  difference  with  so  much  distinctness  as  forever  to  guard  it  from 
the  possil)ility  of  misapprehension,  and  lay  down  laws  to  guard  the 
diijnity,  powers,  and  authority  of  the  superior  order,  so  as  to  preserve  it 
from  all  encroachment,  'i  his  was  the  case  with  regard  to  the  Levitical 
Priesthood,  though  it  belonged  to  an  inferior  dispensation.  But  we  search 
in  vain  for  any  such  marks  of  distinction,  or  for  any  such  laws.  They 
are  not  to  be  found  in  all  the  Book  of  God  Let  him  that  affirms  it  pro- 
duce them.  On  the  contrary,  the  sacred  writers  always  speak  of  Presby- 
ters and  Bishops  as  identical,  pointing  out  no  distinction  in  their  official 
character  or  duties,  and  leaving  on  recorii  no  hint  of  any  laws  for  the 
regulation  of  any  distinctions.  Is  it  not  then  a  fair  inference  from  these 
undenied  and  undeniable  scriptural  facts,  th;it  the  sacred  writers  had  no 
such  views  of  the  official  superiority  of  Bishops  over  Presbyters  as  Pre- 
latists maintain,  but  that  they  deemed  them  one  and  the  same  order  and 
oflce?  If  they  are  not  to  be  so  understood,  they  have  written  so 
strangely  as  to  mislead  the  mass  of  readers  for  whom  the  Scriptures  were 
intended.  Our  argument,  then,  rests  upon  the  uniform  usus  loquendi  of 
the  inspired  writers  ;  and  there  is  no  case  analagous  to  the  use  of  the 
terms  Bishop  and  Presbyter  in  the  whole  New  Testament. 

*  Titus,  1  ;  5,  6,  7.    See  also  i.  Peter,  5:  1,  2  i  and  othe:  paeeagea. 


0?$  PRELACY    EXAMIiVED. 

"  But,"  say  some  prelatical  writers,  iu  substance,  "  if  you  reason  from 
a  community  of  names  to  a  community  in  rank  or  office,  your  argument 
proves  too  much,  for  the  Apostles  are  called  Presbyters  and  Deacons ; 
and  do  all  these  terms  indicate  the  saaie  official  rank  too  ?  "  * 

Not  quite  so  fast,  Gentlemen.  A  little  disci imination  would  be 
serviceable  here.  We  repeat,  that  there  is  no  case  analagous  to  the  use  of 
the  terms  Bishop  and  Presbyter  in  the  New  Testament.  We  affirm,  (and 
if  any  deny  it  let  the  contrary  be  shown,)  that  there  is  not  a  solitary  instance 
in  the  entire  New  Testament,  of  using  the  names  of  officers  in  common, 
and  of  employing  the  terms  indifferently  the  one  for  the  other  without 
any  marked  distinction,  as  is  the  case  with  the  terras  Presbyter  and  Bi- 
shop, while  at  the  same  time  the  offices  remain  essentially  distinct  and 
incompatible.  Apostles,  indeed,  are  sometimes  called  Elders  or  Presby- 
ters;  but  Apostles  are  not  called  Elders,  and  Elders  Apostles,  indifferent- 
ly, and  without  distinction.  They  are  mentioned  together,  yet  distinci- 
/y__"  Apostles  and  EUlers"t — but  we  never  find  in  the  New  Testament 
the  phrase.  Bishops  and  Presbyters.  These  terms  are  7iever  thus  dis- 
tinguished. When  either  of  them  is  used,  the  other  is  never  used  along 
with  it, — which  is  sufficient  to  ])rove  that  they  mean  the  same  thing,  point 
out  the  same  officer,  as  one  always  sufficed  without  the  other.  Precisely 
the  same  reasoning  will  apply  to  the  word  Deaccfn,  the  common  meaning 
of  which  is,  minister  or  servant.  It  is  in  this  sense  sometimes  applied 
to  an  Apostle,  as  an  Apostle  was  a  servant  of  Christ.  But  he  distinction 
is  always  plain  and  never  confounded  in  the  New  Testament.  No  man 
who  is  acquainted  with  and  reveres  his  Bible,  will  say  that  the  Apostles 
arc  called  Deacons,  and  Deacons  Apostles,  indifferently. 

With  regard  to  all  these  official  titles,  the  case  is  just  this: — that  the 
terms  Apostle,  Presbyter,  Bishop,  Deacon,  designate,  with  marked  pre- 
cision, officers  known  and  established  in  the  Apostolic  Church — that  no 
two  of  these  terms  are  used  interchangeably  and  without  distinction  ex- 
cepting Presbyter  and  Bishop.  For  example :  Apostle  and  Bi>hop, 
Apostle  and  Presbyter,  Apostle  and  Deacon,  Bishop  and  Deacon,  Pres- 
byter and  Deacon,  are  never  put  promiscuously  the  one  for  the  other; 
and  why?  The  reason  is,  that  they  do  not  signify  the  same  thing, 
But  Bishop  and  Presbyter  are  used  interchangpably,  so  that  you  may 
put  the  one  for  the  other  ad  libitum  without  destroying  or  obscuring  the 
sense  of  the  sacred  writers ;  and  why  ?  The  reason  is,  and  must  be, 
that  they  do  signify  the  same  thing — that  is  :  they  designate  one  and 
the   same   grade   of  ecclesiastical   officers.      Now  this   unvarying  uni- 

*  Percival  on  Ap.  Sue.  t  Acts,  15  :  6,  23. 


THE    SCRIPTURAL    BASIS.  69 

ibrmity  in  the  use  of  tlie  terms  Bishop  and  Presbyter,  standing  opposed 
to  an  equal  and  totally  different  uniformity  in  the  use  of  the  other  titles 
noticed,  would  seem  to  be  sufficient,  to  a  reasonable  raind,  to  prove  that 
the  terms  Bishop  and  Presbyter  not  only  indicate  a  community  in  name, 
but  a  community  in  rank  and  oj/ice.  The  usks  loquendi  of  the  New 
Testament,  thus  establishes  the  conclusion,  that  where  the  names  are 
common,  the  things  are  substantially  the  same. 

Now  we  submit  the  question,  if,  as  Bishop  Otey  says,  "it  is  freely 
admitted  by  tlpiscopalians,  that  these  terms  (Bishop  and  Presbyter)  are 
thus  interchaui^eably  used  in  the  New  Testament, "  must  they  not  in  all 
consistency  also  admit,  that  Bishop  and  Presbyter  are  the  same  "in 
rank  or  order  ? "     Let  those  escape  the  conclusion  who  can.  * 

Section  3. — Presbyters  clothed  with  the  functions  of  Government 
and  Ordination. 

We  now  proceed  to  the  second  general  argument,  showing  that 
Bishops  are  not  an  order  superior  to  Presbyters,  but  that  Presbyters  are 
by  Divine  authority  the  same  order,  &c.,  which  is,  that, 

II  Presbyters  and  Bishops  are  clothed  with  the  same  official  powers 
and  Durns. 

The  reader  will  bear  in  mind,  that  we  have  already  argued  from  a 
"  community  of  nomes"  to  a  community  in  official  rank.  Although 
the  opponents  of  Prelacy  in  general,  deem  this  argument  conclusive, 
yet  we  are  willing  to  go  farther,  and  insist  that  Presbyters  and  Bishops 
are  represented  in  Scripture  as  possessing  the  same  character,  powers, 
and  duties. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  concise  statement  of  facts,  embodied  in  the 
following  propositions,  that  the  Scriptures  not  only  deal  in  names  on  this 
point,  but  in  things:^ 

1.  'I'he  word  Bishop  {iTtUxoTioi)  is  never  used  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament to  signify  the  oversight  over  ministers,  but  only  over  the  flock  of 
Christ,  j: 

2.  Bishops  and  Presbyters  have  the  saine  qicalifications.^ 

•  All  iinpoilaiit  historical  tact  may  be  mentioned  here.  "  The  Syrian  translation  of 
the  Scriptures,  whic'i  is  so  very  ancient  that  it  comes  nearest  in  time  to  the  original, 
uses  the  same  word  to  express  loth  Bishop  a7id  Freshyler  (See  Syrian  version  on  I.  Tim. 
3:  1,  and  Tilu?,  I:  5,  7.)  This  is  a  strong  evidence  that  any  distinction  between  Bishop 
and  Prcs.i;,  ter  was  Liiiknowii  whea  'his  translation  was  made.  " — Walt  Pref.  Bib.  Pol. 
as  cited  by  divines  of  ihe  Synod  of  U'ster. 

t  These  iiroposinons  and  rcle'encis,  as  here  arranged,  are  taken  from  a  work  entitled 
"  Plea  oi  I'resiiytery,"  by  several  ministers  of  the  Synod  of  Ulster,  Ireland. 

t  Acs  20:  28  ;  1    Peter,  5:2  3 

5  Titus,  1:  5-9;  I.  Tim.  3:  1,  2;  Acts,  20:  17,  28. 

K 


70  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

3.  Bishops  and  Presbyters  have  the  same  ordination.  * 

4.  Bishops  and  Preshyters  have  the  same  duties.] 

5.  Bishops  and  Presbyters  have  the  same  power  and  attthorify. 

6.  PllESBYTERS  AHE   F.XP    ESSI  Y  SAID  TO  ORDAIN Bl^H'tPS  NEVER.} 

7.  The  Apostles  sometimes  call  themselves  Presbyters,  but  never 
Bishops. 

8.  Presbyters  are  mentioned  as  joining  the  Apostles  in  the  Council  at 
Jerusalem;  but  no  express  mention  is  made  of  Bishops.  § 

9.  The  collections  for  the  poor  at  Jerusalem  are  to  be  sent  to  the  Pres- 
byters, but  no  mention  is  made  of  l)ishops.  |1 

It  will  be  quite  unnecessary  to  illustrate  and  defend  each  oi  the  above 
propositions  at  length  and  in  detail.  They  are  intended  simply  to  show 
how  full  and  overwhelming  the  evidence  really  is  with  which  our  main 
position  is  fortified.  There  are  two  points,  however,  pertaining  to  minis- 
terial powers  and  duties,  upon  the  determination  of  which  the  argument 
mainly  depends.  To  these  only  our  attention  will  now  be  directed.  We 
maintain  that  Presbyters  are  clothed  with  the  power  and  duty  ol  govern- 
ing the  Church,  and  ordaining  to  the  ministerial  office.  Pielatists  deny 
it.  Whichever  way  the  scale  of  evidence  inclines,  as  regards  these  two 
points,  must  the  present  question  be  decided. 

1.  As  to  governing  or  ruling. 

The  following  is  the  only  place  where  ruling  is  expressly  assigned  to 
a  Bifhrp :  "  A  Bishop  must  be  one  that  rUleth  well  his  own  house,"  &c.; 
otherwise,  "  how  shall  he  take  care  of  the  Church  ?  "  ^ 

In  the  following  passages,  ruling  or  governing  U  enjoined  upon  Pres- 
byters or  Elders:  "  Let  the  Elders  that  rule  well  be  counted  worthy  of 
double  honor,  "  «fec.  **  "  The  Elders  which  are  among  you  1  exhort, 
who  also  am  an  Elder.  Feed[ot  rule']  the  flock  of  God,  which  is  among 
you,  taking  the  oversight  thereof,"  &c.  tt  Paul  "  sent  to  F.phesus  and 
called  the  Elders  of  the  Church,"  &c.  He  said  to  them:  "Take  heed 
therefore  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over  tlie  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  haih  made  you  overseers,  to  feed  [or  rule']  the  Church  of  God, 
which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood.  "  }J  The  wurd  in  these 
passages  translated  "  feed, "  (noifidvatf)  and  "  to  feed, "  [rto<,fiai,vEi,v) 
means  in  the  original,  taking  such  care  as  a  shepherd  does  of  his  flock. 
This  of  course  implies  watching  over,  guidiis-.  tuid  ruling.  §§ 

•  Acis,  20:  17,  28  ;  Tilus,  1:  5—7.  1 1.   I'mi  .  3:  Z,  4,  o\  b:  11;  aud  proola  as  aoove. 

Jl.  Tim..  4:14.  $Acs   15:2,4,6,22,23. 

11  Acts,  11:  30.  IT  I.  Tim.  3:2,  4,  5. 

••I  Tim.  5:17.  +tl  Pet  r,  5:  1,  2.  n  Acts,  20:  17,  28. 

5^  The  same  word  is  rendered  "ru!e"  in  our  English  version  in  several  places,  as 
Matt  2:  6;  Rev.  2:  27;  Rev.  12:  5;  Rev.  19:  15. 


THE    SCRIPTURAL    BASIS.  71 

if  the  above  passages  do  not  expressly  convey  to  Presbyters  the  autho- 
rity of,  exerciilb?  sTovernment  and  discipline — nay,  if  they  do  not 
expressly  enjoin  upon  them  the  imperative  f/w/?/  of  exercising  these 
functions,  it  would  be  difficult  for  human  language  either  to  convey  the 
one  or  enjoin  the  other. 

But  farther.  Not  only  is  the  power  of  government  plainly  attributed 
to  Presbyters,  but  we  have  recorded  cases  of  their  having  actually  exer- 
cised that  power  during  the  life-time  of  the  Apostles.  '1  o  m  ntion  one. 
The  question  which  arose  in  the  Church  of  Antioch  as  to  the  propriety 
of  retaining  the  institutions  of  Moses,  was  referred  to  the  "  Apostles  and 
£lders  "  at  Jerusalem.*  'I  he  question  before  the  council  was  one  of 
vast  importance  to  the  infant  Church.  Presbyters  shared  in  the  delibera- 
tions. ISiow,  how  is  it  possible  to  conceive  that  the  Chujch  of  Antioch 
should  refer  a  matter  of  such  moment  to  the  J^lders  or  Presbyters,  in 
conjunction  with  the  Apostles,  if  ^had  not  been  a  generally  understood 
and  well  settled  principle  that  they  were  then  the  ordinary  governors  of 
the  Church?  And,  be  it  remarked,  from  all  that  appears  in  the  record, 
the  Apostles  acted  on  this  occasion  as  ordinary  members  of  this  delibera- 
tive Synod,  and  not  in  their  extraordinary  character  as  Apostles.  Had 
they  acted  in  the  latter  ca|)acity,  any  one  of  them  could  have  decided  the 
subject  in  debate  by  declaring  tiie  express  will  of  the  Almighty  ;  but  they 
deliberated  upon  and  reasoned  the  matter  with  the  other  members  of  tlio 
council,  who  joined  with  them  in  the  decision.  We  see,  therefore,  that 
Presbyters  were  not  only  authorised  to  rule,  but  did  actually  exercise  the 
prerogative  of  government  in  the  Apostolic  age,  and  in  conjunction  with 
the  Apostles  themselves. 

2    As  to  ordination. 

PrESBYTI  RS  ARE  EXPRFS'LY  SAID  TO  ORDAIN BiSHOPS  NEVER. 

This,  after  all,  is  deemed  by  Prelatists  generally,  the  hinge  upon  which 
the  whole  controversy  turns  They  admit  that  if  we  can  make  out  from 
the  Scriptures  one  clear  case  of  Presbyterial  ordination,  the  exclusive 
claims  of  tlie  liierarchy  must  fail.  They  challenge  us  to  the  task.  We 
cheerfully  meet  them,  and  agree  to  stake  our  eccle^^iastical  fortunes  upon 
the  issue. 

Bishop  Onderdonk,  of  Pennsylvania,  says  ,  upon  this  point :  "The 
main  issue  then  is — whether  Presbyters,  or  more  strictly.  Presbyters 
alone,  have  a  scriptural  right  to  ordain — or  whether  the  agency  of  a 
minister  of  a  higher  grade  than  Presbyters  is  not  essential  to  the  due  per- 
formance of  that  act?     Whichever  way  this  great  issue  be   decided,  all 

•  See  the  whole  account  in  Acts,  15. 


72  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

subordinate  questions  go  with  it,  if  not  necessarily,  yet  because  they  will 
no  longer  be  worth  contending  for  by  either  party."*  This  is  fair.  It 
is  putting  the  matter  in  question  to  the  true  touchstone,  the  Word  of  God, 

But  right  in  the  face  of  all  this  we  find  the  "Bishop  of  Tennessee" 
playing  a  characteristic  part.  He  does  not  seem  to  regard  the  word  of 
God  as  alone  authoritative  in  such  important  matters.  We  can  almost 
fancy  him  shaking  with  fear,  lest,  if  the  Scriptures  alone  be  summoned 
in  evidence,  the  verdict  may  go  against  him.  He  writes  thus  :  If  "  Presr 
byterial  ordination  be  the  institution  of  God,  Episcopal  ordination  must 
be  of  man.  They  cannot  both  be  of  Divine  authority,  and  consequently 
one  or  the  other  must  be  without  just  claims  to  the  obedience  of  man. 
If  the  former,  prove  it  by  Scripture  and  the  voice  of  antiquity,  and 
we  surrender  Episcopacy  upon  the  spot.  But  tliat  cannot  be  done,  my 
brethren.  The  Bible  must  be  changed,  and  the  writings  of  tlie  JFathers 
must  be  changed,  before  it  can  be  shc^i  that  Presbyteriani&m  is  of  God, 
and  Episcopacy  of  man."  t 

Whew !  'J  he  Tennessean  Bishop  has  placed  before  us  feeble  handed 
Presbyterians  a  task  truly  Herculean.  Before  we  can  with  any  show  of 
reason  enter  upon  the  work  of  proving  a  case  of  Presbyterial  ordination, 
we  have  a  preliminary  task  to  perform,  hiige  indeed.  We  must  "  change 
the  Bible !  "  Ah,  but  that  is  not  all.  If  we  could  summon  Divine  aid, 
and  so  alter  the  inspired  records  that  they  should  speak  in  a  voice  of  ten 
thousand  thunders,  and  gleam  in  every  line  with  the  light  of  the  noon  day 
sun  to  the  perfect  conviction  of  the  learned  and  ignorant — Prelatists  and 
all- — that  our  cause  were  right  and  the  hierarchy  found  wanting,  yet  this, 
in  the  estimation  of  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee,"  would  not  entitle  us  to 
triumph  !  Oh  no  !  We  must  after  all  this,  "  change  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers,*''  from  Clement  down  to  the  latest,  so  that  "  the  voice  of  an- 
tiquity'''' shall  be  heard  in  conjunction  with  the  authoritative  teachings  of 
the  truth-inspiring  Spirit,  and  then,  aye  then,  victory  shall  perch  upon 
our  banner,  the  high  plumes  of  the  hierarchy  shall  fall,  and  prelacy  fair- 
ly conquered  with  her  oivn  peculiar  weapons,  shall  be  "  surrendered  up- 
on the  spot,''  and  her  mangled  corse  quietly  laid  at  our  feet ! 

But  in  all  seriousness,  what  is  this  but  a  sad  defection  from  the  grand 
bulwark  of  the  Protestant  faith  ?  What  is  this  but  putting  the  writings 
of  the  Fathers  on  a  par  with  the  Bible  ! — the  works  of  erring,  fallible 
men  like  ourselves,  side  by  side  with  the  inspired,  infallible  Word  of  God  ! 
We  ask  conscientious,  truth-loving  Episcopalians,  if  they  are  ready 
to  underwrite  for  the    "  Bishop  of  Tennessee, "  in  advancing  such   a 


Episcopacy  it'slec!  liy  ScripUitc.  t  Discourses,  ji.  :!9. 


THE   SCRIPTURAJ.   BASIS.  73 

sentiment  ?  We  are  unwilling  to  believe  it  until  it  is  made  manifest. 
How  plainly  is  this  at  war  with  the  immortal  declaration  of  Chilling- 
worth,  an  eminent  Church  of  England  divine  of  a  former  day  :  "  The 
Bible,  I    say,  the  Bible  alone,   is  the  religion  of  Protestants. ''  . 

But  after  all,  such  things  need  excite  no  surprise.  They  are  common 
in  these  days.  The  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee  "  has  perhaps  but  taken 
the  first  degree  in  the  rapid  strides  of  his  Church  towards  Popery.  But 
he  has  begun  at  such  a  point — undervaluing  the  Scriptures — that  the 
journey  to  the  Vatican  may  be  as  short  as  it  is  sure. 

'1  he  only  true  test  on  this  whole  subject,  is  what  has  been  stated,  the. 
Word  of  God,  and  that  only;  and  we  think  the  reader  will  be  able  to  see 
before  we  dismiss  the  subject,  that  we  have  no  occasion  to  "  change  the 
Bible,"  in  order  to  sustain  our  position.  We  shall,  in  another  chapter, 
pay  that  deference  to  the  Fathers  which  they  deserve.  Whatever  they 
may  say,  however,  they  cannot  be  put  in  competition  with  the  authority 
of  the  Word  of  God.  In  cmiparison  with  that,  they  are  as  darkness  to 
light.  We  are  reminded  here  of  an  anecdote  in  point,  which  runs  thus  : 
An  Irish  peasant  was  once  advised  by  his  Priest  to  give  up  his  Bible,  and 
study  the  Fathers.  "  Who  are  the  Fathers?  I  never  heard  of  the  Fa- 
thers, "  said  tlie  peasant.  "  Why,  "  said  the  Priest,  "  the  Fathers  are 
St.  Jerome,  St.  Augustine,  and  other  Saints."  "I  never  saw  them,'' 
said  the  poor  man,  "  but  I  have  the  grand- fat  hers.  I  have  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke  and  John,  and  1  think  the  grand-fathers  must  be  superior  to 
the  Fathers. '' 

This  characteristic  pertinence  of  Irish  wit  is  a  pointed  rebuke  to  the 
Romanizing  Protestantism  of  the  present  day,  which  evinces  a  supersti- 
tious reverence  for  the  fallible,  varying,  contradictory,  and  false  teachings 
of  antiquity.     The  "  grand-fathers  "  alone  are  of  Divine  authority. 

We  assert,  and  shall  endeavor  to  prove,  that  there  are  specific  examples  in 
the  Word  of  God  of  ordination  having  been  performed  by  Presbyters  alone. 

StcTioN  4. — Barnabas  and  Saul  ordained  by  Presbyters. 

The  first  case  we  notice  is  recorded  as  follows  :  "  Now  there  were  in 
the  Church  that  was  at  Antioch,  certain  prophets  and  teachers,  as  Barna- 
bas, and  Simeon  that  was  called  Niger,  and  Lucius  of  Cyrene,  and  Ma- 
naen  which  had  been  braught  up  with  Herod  the  tetrarch,  and  Saul.  As 
they  ministered  to  the  Lord,  and  fasted,  the  Holy  Ghost  said,  Separate 
me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  Avork  whereunto  I  have  called  them.  And 
when  they  had  fasted  and  prayed,  and  laid  their  hands  on  iheni,  they 
sent  them  awa)'.  "  * 

•Acle.  13:  J. 3,  3 


74  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

iu  exaiHiaing  this  passage,  the  following  questions  arise  :  1.  What  ib 
ordination?  2.  Is  this  a  case  of  ordination  ?  If  s,.,-^'  Who  are  the 
ordainers  ?  ^ 

1.  JVhat  is  ordination  ? 

Ordination  is  an  external  rite,  by  which  a  person  is  inducted  into  the 
ministerial  offi  ce. 

The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  employ  five  different  words,  in 
speaking  of  ordination,  all  of  which,  in  their  general  signification,  mean, 
simply,  to  appoint  or  place  in  office.*  But  this  ceremony,  if  any  uni- 
formity is  intended,  must  of  course  be  performed  in  some  pariicnlar  man- 
lier. The  chief  rite  observed,  as  recorded  in  several  places  in  thj  New 
Testament,  was  the  laying  on  of  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  person  or- 
dained ;t  though  this  same  rite  was  frequently  observed  when  imparting 
spiritual  or  supernatural  gifts  in  cases  where  no  ordination  to  the  ministry 
was  designed.  The  laying  on  of  hands  was  generally  accompanied  with 
prayer,  and  sometimes  preceded  by  lasting. 

Hut  Prelatisis  admit  that  the  foregoing  com])rise  all  the  essential  mat- 
ters in  the  mere  ceremonial  of  an  ordination,  under  any  circumstances. 
They  doubtless  would  deem  an  ordination  valid,  where  all  thesp  were  not 
observed.  Indeed,  some  of  their  prominent  writers  have  declared  that 
even  the  laying  on  of  hands  is  not  necessary  to  constitute  a  valid  ordin-  ' 
ation.  Bishop  Otey  certainly  admits  the  definition  we  have  given,  taken 
in  its  most  naked  sense.  He  asks :  "  \  hat  is  ordination  ?  It  is 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  designation  to  office — or  the  right  to  exercise 
certain  powers  delegated  by  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  for  the  edifi- 
cation of  its  members. "J 

2.  Js  this  case,  {the  setting  apart  of  Barnabas  and  Saul,)  an  in- 
stance of  ordination  to  the  ministry  ? 

We  answer — It  is. 

All  the  essen  ial  rites  of  ordination  were  here  observed,  our  opponents 
themselves  being  judges.  Here  were  fasting,  prayer,  impisiiion  of 
hands,  and  the  setting  apart  to  the  work  of  the  ministry  of  two  individu- 
als  by  three  others,  and  all  this  un  ier  the  special  direction  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  This  is  the  only  account  given  in  J^cripture  of  their  ordination, 
and  if  this  does  not  refer  to  that  ceremony,  we  have  no  positive  evidence 
that  they  were  ever  ordained.  That  they  preached,  however,  and  per- 
formed all  ordinary  ministerial  functions,  is  undeniable. 

•  Mark,  3:  14;  Ac;s,  1:  22;  do.,  U,  23;  i.  Tim.  2:  7;  Titus,  1:  5  In  each  ol  ihese  five 
paEsatjea  a  ilifftrent  word  is  used  in  the  Greek  to  express  ordination,  though  in  our  ver- 
sion four  of  these  words  are  rendered  ordained,  and  one  ordain. 

tActp,  6:  6;  do.,  13:  3;  I  Tim.,  4:  14;  do.,  5:  22.  $  Discourses,  p  64. 


THE  SCRIPTURAL  BASIS.  76 

But  it  is  admitted  that  this  was  an  instance  of  ordination  by  a  host  of 
prelatical  writers.  Archbishop  Wyke,  speaking  of  this  transjiction  at 
Antinch,  says:  "Thus  was  Harnabas,  together  with  ^"t.  Paul,  first  a 
teacher  and  a  prophet,  then  consecrated  (or  ordained)  to  be  a  Bishop  or 
an  Apostle,"  &c.  "  8t.  Paul,  though  he  were  called  to  be  an  Apostle, 
not  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ  himself,  was  yet  consecrated  to  be  an 
Apostle  by  the  ordinary  form  of  imposition  of  hands,  after  he  had 
preached  in  the  Church  for  some  time."*  Archbishop  VVhateley  says: 
»♦  Ii  w  IS  by  the  special  appointment  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  ^aul  and  Bar- 
nabas were  ordained  to  the  very  highest  office,  the  Apostleship,  not  by 
the  hands  «)f  the  other  Apostles,  but  by  the  Elders  of  Antiocli."t  In  the 
old  l\nglish  Ordinal  for  the  cons  cration  of  }3ishops,  this  very  case  is 
quoted  as  one  of  the  two  examples  of  ordination  adduced  as  precedents 
from  Scripture,  in  these  words  »' It  is  written  also  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Aptisdes,  th  It  the  disciples  which  were  at  Antioch,  did  fast  and  pray,  or 
ever  they  laid  hands  upon  or  sent  forth  Paul  and  Barnabas."  J  Dr. 
Lighifoot  declares,  speaking  of  this  same  case  :  "  No  better  reason  can 
be  given  of  this  present  action,  than  that  the  Lord  did  hereby  set  down  a 
platform  of  ordaining  ministers  to  the  Church  of  the  Gentiles  to  future 
tinie."§ 

This  setting  apart  of  Barnabas  and  Saul  at  Antioch,  was,  therefore,  a 
regular  ordination  to  the  ministry.  It  is  proved  by  the  common  sense 
nieanit'g  of  the  record  of  the  case,  and  is  admitted  by  these  able  divines 
of  the  Episcopal  Church,  to  whom  a  score  might  be  added.  || 

•Aposiolic  Faihers,  Prelim.  Dis.,  sec.  5. 

t  Kingdi)in  of  Christ,  Essay  2d  ,  sec.  15. 

X  Liiu  giesof  King  Edward  VI,  compared.  $  Lightfoot's  Works. 

||Opp  ments  of  Prelacy  are  somelinies  rebuked  because  Ihey  show  so  mucli  ignorance 
as  to  Use  ihe  word  ordination  when  they  ought  to  say  consecration— as  ■n  setting  apart  a 
Prehite,  for  instance.  We  are  told  "a  Uishop  is  consecrated— not  ordained."  But  if  our 
instructors  were  better  acquainted  with  their  Prayer  Books  ihey  would  find  that  the 
wards  are  there  used  synonymously.  Tlie  form  of  ordaining  Prelates  is  entitled, ''  The 
form  of  ordaining  or  consecrating  a  Bishop."  So  v\  the  above  quotations.  Dr.  Wake 
savs  Biirnabas  and  Saul  were  "consecrated,"  Dr?.  Wtiateley  and  Lightluol,  that  they 
were  "ordained."  Kven  liishop  Otey  employs  both  words  as  meaning  ihe  same,  in  his 
discourses:  "  b'or  the  ordination  of  a  Bishop  woulu  only  tane  place  at  the  end  of  his 
predecessor's  life,"  «.^c.  (p  64.)  Again  he  speaks  of  "  Episcopal  ordination,"  and  of  tho 
"  rule  ut  orainaiion  or  consecration."  (p  6.^.)  Also  he  quotes  the  first  Apos  olical  Canon 
assaying — "  Let  a  Bishop  be  consecrated  by  two  or  three  Bishops," — (p.  63.)  and  in  re- 
ferring to  this  (p.  63)  he  says:  "  We  have  already  shown  that  "  a  Bishop  be  or(fat«ea  liy 
two  or  three  Bishops,"  «&c.  Let  it  be  understood,  then,  once  foi  all,  that  the  most  oiniii- 
cnt  writers  in  "  the  Church,"  and  the  Prayer  Book,  too,  use  the  words  as  meaning  (ht 
mm.".  If,  in  the  present  discussion,  we  use  both,  we  hope  we  shall  be  understood  as 
luivin.f'  s-^r  d  :.|)i''f>-ity.  'the  Prnyrr  IJook,  to  be  sure,  speaks  of  "  the  form  and  rnannor 
of  making  Deacons."    But  let  that  puss. 


76  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

We  might  dismiss  the  point  here,  and  proceed  at  once  to  inquire  who 
were  the  ordainers  of  Barnabas  and  Saul.  But  some  modern  writers, 
perhaps  to  avoid  the  conchision  that  this  was  a  case  of  ordination  by 
Presbyters,  have  denied  than  it  was  an  ordination  at  all.  *  We  will  no- 
tice some  of  their  leading  objections,  and  then  inquire  who  officiated  in 
the  transaction. 

The  first  objection  commonly  urged,  is,  that  Barnabas  and  Saul  were 
already  in  the  minislnj,  and  could  not,  therefore,  have  been  ordaine  I  at 
this  time.  'Yo  this  we  reply,  that  it  is  readily  granted  that  Saul  at  least 
had  been  engaged  in  preaching  before  this  time,  having  been  called  di- 
rectly  by  Christ  into  the  ministry  and  to  the  Apostleship.  But  that  Bar- 
nabas and  Saul  had  ever  before  been  set  apart  by  human  ordainers,  we 
have  no  evidence.  There  is  no  proof  on  record  indeed,  that  previous  to 
this  occurrence  at  Antioch,  Paul  ever  baptized,  or  administered  the  Lord's 
supper,  or  performed  any  other  ministerial  function  besides  preaching. 
It  was,  too,  not  till  after  this,  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  exercised  tlieir  offi- 
cial power,  and  "  ordained  Elders  in  every  Church,  "t  Previous  to  this, 
they  had  labored  amojig  the  Jews  only.  Now  they  were  to  be  sent  to 
establish  the  Church  among  the  Gentiles,  and  therefore  it  was  deemed 
best  that  they  should  receive  such  ordination  at  the  hands  of  men  as 
Christ  designed  to  be  perpetual  in  the  Church  ;  just  as  Lightfoot  says  : 
"  The  Lord  did  hereby  set  down  a  platiorm  of  ordaining  ministers  in 
the  Church  of  the  Gentiles  to  future  time.  "  JNo  example  of  such  ordi- 
nation had  yet  been  given.  But  if  ordination  by  men  was  intended  to 
be  established  as  a  uniform  practice,  it  was  necessary  that  a  beginning 
should  be  made,  and  accordingly  the  example  was  here  exhibited.  The 
fact,  therefore,  that  Barnabas  and  Saul  had  preached  before  this,  does  not 
destroy  the  conclusion  that  they  were  now  publicly  ordained,  sincr  many 
■who  received  the  Holy  Spirit  took  that  as  a  sufficient  warrant  ti»  exercise 
their  gifts  in  Christian  assemblies.  "  Thus,  Paul,  "  says  Archliishop 
Wake,  "though  he  were  called  to  be  an  Aposde,  not  by  man,  but  by 
Jesus  Christ  himself,  was  yet  consecrated  to  be  an  Apostle  by  the  ordi- 
nary form  of  imposition  of  hands,  after  he  had  preached  in  the  Church 
for  some  time  before.  " 

The  only  other  objection  worthy  of  note,  is,  that  the  work  to  which 
Barnabas  and  Saul  were  here  appointed,  was  that  of  a  temporaiy  mis- 
sion, and  therefore  that  this  transaction  was  not  an  or  in  tlion,  but 
merely  a  purling  bene  licfion.  To  this  it  replied,  (1.)  'i'hat  it  was 
plainly  not  a  temporary  work,  for  in   their  first  tour  tliey  occupied  not 

*  Bishop  Oiiderdonk's  Epis.  tested  by  fc3i;rip.,and,  others, 
t  Acts,  14  :  23. 


THE    SCRIPTURAL   BASIS.  77 

less  than  three  yrars,  and  then  "  Paul  said  unto  Barnabas,  let  us  go 
again  and  visit  our  breihren  in  ev  ry  city  where  we  have  preached  tlie 
Word  of  the  Lord,  and  see  liow  tliey  do  "*  In  this  second  tour  they 
were  engaged  some  four  years ;  and  llien,  having  relumed  on  a  visit  to 
Antioch,  tliey  started  upon  a  tliird  mission  which  ended  only  with  their 
lives.  Il  is  argued  that  this  was  a  temporary  n'ission,  chiefly  because, 
on  returning  to  Antioch  after  their  first  tour,  it  is  said  that  they  had 
*^ fulfilled  the  work  for  which  they  had  been  recommended  to  the  grace 
of  (j!od,"t  that  is,  »'  fulfilled''  in  the  sense  of  having  completed  or  fin- 
ished it.  Hut  the  original  word  (am^urti^pfu/)  rendered  •'  fulfilled,"  means 
simply,  "  they  JuUy  or  faithfully  perjoryned  the  work.  "  J  They-  could 
not  have  finished  the  work  and  completed  the  mission  in  the  first  tour 
for  they  prosecuted  it  a  second  and  a  third  time,  and  continued  in  the 
service  till  death.  Evidently,  then,  their  work  was  not  temporary.  But 
(2.)  This  ceremony  was  not  merely  a  solemn  parting  benediction,  be- 
cause it  was  observed  only  on  the'\r  first  departure,  whereas,  they  made 
three  several  departures  to  the  same  work  and  field,  preaching  the  Gos- 
pel, and  esiablishing  Churches  among  the  Gentiles.  If  it  were  a  mere 
parting  ceremony,  would  it  not  have  been  just  as  appropriate  and  impor- 
tant, and  as  likely  to  be  observed  too,  at  each  subsequent  departure,  as  at 
the  first  ?  If  they  had  "  fulfilled  "  their  work  in  the  sense  of  having  cotn- 
pleied  it  during  their  first  tour,  and  if  the  event  at  Antioch  was  only  a 
blessing,  instead  of  an  ordination,  why  did  they  not  receive  a  similar 
benediction  at  each  successive  time  of  their  going  out  ?  It  would  seem  that 
such  a  blessing  would  have  been  equally  appropriate  and  n'-cessary  the 
second  and  third  time,  where  the  interv  d  which  elapsed  was  three  and  four 
years.  But  if  this  occurrence  was  a  real  ordination,  to  serve  as  an  exam- 
ple to  the  Gentile  Church  "  to  all  future  time,"  the  one  ceremonial  was 
of  course  sufficient. 

Giving  the  objections  due  force,  therefore,  we  are  constrained  to  con- 
sider this  a  regular  induction  into  the  ministerial  office  by  the  ceremony 
of  ordination.  All  the  circumstances  of  the  case  warrant  it.  Many  of 
the  most  able  prelatical  writers  admit  it. 

3.  Who,  then,  were  the  ordainers  of  Barnabas  and  SauV. 

"We  answer-j-They  were  Presbyters. 

Bishop  Otey  insists  that  originally  the  Apostles  possessed  the  sole 
authority  to  ordain.  But  (1.)  The  ordai,iers  of  Barnabas  and  JSaul 
were  not  Apostles.     This  may  be  seen  by  a  comparison  of  their  names 

•  Acts,  15  :  36.  t  Acts,  14  :  26. 

%  The  same  word  is  used  Ivom.  15:  19,  where  it  plainly  has  this  meaning. 

L 


76  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

with  the  names  of  the  twelve.  They  were  "Simeon  that  was  called 
Niger.  Lucius,  and  .Vlanaen.  "  No  such  names  appear  in  llie  list  of  the 
i\pi)s;les.  (2.)  'I  hey  were  not  Prelates,  or  Hishops  in  the  prelatical  sense, 
for  tliey  were  ail  three  ministering  "  in  the  Chuich  that  was  at  Antioch, " 
implying  that  they  were  resident  tlier  ;  and  n  >  canon  is  more  cUaily 
established  than  this,  tliat  there  cannot  be  a  plurality  of  I 'relates  in  any 
one  Church,  or  Diocese  (3)  'I'hey  must,  therefore,  have  been  Pres- 
byters, for  our  opponents  do  not  pretend  that  there  was  anv  gradi'  higlier 
than  Presbyters  at  this  time,  except  the  Apostles.  They  are  styled 
•'  P'-ophets  and  Teachers."  From  this,  some  have  argued  that  they  must 
have  been  something  different  from  Presbyters,  and  higher  in  rank.  But 
this  designation  refers  to  their  peculiar  iubors,  rather  than  to  their  eccle- 
siastical grade  .1  o  "  prophesy  "  and  to  "  teach,"  are  terms  used  in  Scrip- 
ture to  designate  the  ordinary  ministerial  duty  of  preacliing,  &c.  "  These 
terms,'-  says  an  Kpiscopal  writer,  "  Apostle*-,  Prophets,  I'vangelists, 
Pastors,  and  Teachtrs,  do  not  include  so  many  several  orders  or  degrees 
of  Church  officers,  but  rather  diffierent  denonjniitions  conferred  upon 
those  officers  which  were  in  the  (Jliurch  bef  )re,  with  relation  to  iheir 
labors.""*  "Under  them,"  (Apostles)  says  Hishop  Sherlock,  'were 
placed  IVstors  and  'teachers,  who  were  comprehended  under  the  general 
name  of  Propliets.  "t  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  ordainers  of  Bar- 
nabas and  Saul  could  not  have  been  of  a  rank  higher  than  Presbyters. 

But  it  in  achnilted  by  '  re/utists  that  tluy  w  re  bona  fide  Presbyters. 
Dr.  Lightfoot  says:  "  And  so  Simeon,  fiUcius,  and  Manaen,  uniierstand- 
ing  what  the  Lord  meant,  and  having  used  another  solemn  day  in  fasting 
and  payer,  lay  their  hands  upon  them,  and  set  them  apart  by  ordinati(>n, 
ace  rding  as  the  ordaining  of  Riders  among  the  Jews  was  by  a  triumvi- 
ra'e,  or  by  tliree  Elders.  This  is  the  second  imposition  of  hands  since 
the  (Jospcl  began,  whicli  did  not  confer  the  lloiy  Ghost  with  it ;  for  these 
two  v.-e.-e  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  before;  and  this  is  the  first  ordination  of 
Elders  since  t'le  Gospel,  that  was  used  out  of  the  land  of  Israel.  "  J  iMr. 
Hinds,  a  prelatical  divini'  of  Oxfonl,  England,  says  :  "  Tn  the  case  of  the 
ordination  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  at  Anicch,  these  were  Presiyt(rs 
alone.'"  §  Cne  more  witness  will  suffice  ']  he  present  Archbishf  p  of 
Dublin,  Dr.  Whateley,  says  :  "  It  is  worth  remarking  also,  that,  as  i/  rn 
pvrpose  to  guard  against  the  assumpliun,  which  might,  not  unnaturally 
have  taken  place,  of  some  supremacy — such  as  no  Church  was  designed 

•  riee  Boyse's  A  net.  I^pis.,  &c.,  as  quoted  by  Sm>ih. 

t  Sherlock's  VVdtks,  vol  8,  as  quoted  by  Smyth. 

tLighifoot'8  WorKS,  vol.  8.  'jHiat.  Rise  and  Prog.  Christ. 


THE  SCRIPTURAL  BASIS.  79 

to  enjoy — on  thp  part  of  Jerusalem,  the  fountain  head  of  the  religion,  it 
was  by  the  special  app.iinlmeiit  o(  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  Saul  and  Bar- 
nabas were  ordainvd  to  tlu  very  highest  office,  the  AposllesLip,  not  by 
the  /land.s  0/  the  other  ^Ipostles,  or  uf  any  persons  at  Jerusalem,  but  by 
thii  F.M'ERs  OP  Antioch.  "* 

We  subuiit  th  •  evidence  and  concessions  here  adduced,  and  ask  every 
candid  reader  to  d.  ride  whether  or  not  we  have  fairly  macJe  out  a  case  of 
Preshyeriul  ordination.  We  are  willing  to  abide  the  answer.  We  think 
we  have  shown  that  we  have  no  oci^asion  to  "  c  lang  ;  the  Bilile  "  to  make 
it  spe.dc  in  our  favor,  but  thai  takinij  it  in  its  plain  meaning,  it  authorizes 
us  to  say,  that  Bariiubas  and  iSaul  were  ordained  to  the  ministry  us 
Jin  iock  by  a  "  triumvirate  cf  Presbyters.  "  Now  place  alongside  of 
the  furt'gumg  evidence  the  bold  and  unblusliing  assertions  of  Biship 
Utey :  "  ^Vc  do  not  find  mention  once  made  of  ordination  by  a  congre- 
gation or  by  a  council  o(  Presbyters.  "  "  'I'hat  not  a  single  instance  of 
the  holders  exercising  the  power  of  rdination  has  ever  been  clearly  made 
out,  is  just  as  certain  as  that  the  higher  or  Apostolic  order  (hd  exercise 
that  power.  "  t  To  what  shall  we  attribute  such  assertions  ?  Well  might 
one  say,  "  Prejudice  is  omnipotent!  " 

There  is  one  (act  here  which  deserves  particular  attention.  One  of 
the  persons  ordained  on  this  occasion  was  !>aul  uf  Tarsus,  afterwarJs 
called  I'aul,  the  illustrious  Apostle  to  tiie  CJenliles.  Now,  as  thougli  the 
Almighty  wished  to  give  the  strongest  practical  demonstration  of  e^wc/zVy 
of  rank  and  samuiess  (  f  order  among  all  the  ministers  of  the  (Jospel,  as 
to  tiieir  ordinary  functions — or,  as  Archbisiiop  \n  hateley  says,  "as  if  on 
purpose  to  guard  against  the  assumption  of  some  supremacy'''' — pAur, 
with  all  the  splendor  of  his  Apostolic  character,  was  on  this  occasion 
ordained,  according  to  the  direction  of  the  Holy  (ihost,  by  these  plain 
Presbyters  oj  the  Cliurch  of  Antioch.'  Here,  then,  is  a  case  wliere 
"  Presbyters  alone  "  performed  an  ordination,  and  that  of  an  Apostle  too, 
Archbisliops  Wake,  Whaieley,  &c.,  being  judges  ! 

Is ow  if,  according  to  Bishop  OnlerJonk,  the  whole  controversy  be- 
tween the  respecuve  claims  of  the  two  opposing  systems.  Prelacy  and 
Presbytery,  is  to  turn  upon  this  single  point — "  whether  Presbyters  alone 
have  a  scriptural  right  to  ordain,  or  wiiedier  the  age. icy  of  a  minister  of 
a  higher  grade  tiian  Presbyters  is  not  essential  to  the  due  performance  of 
that  act  ' — we  leave  the  reader  to  judge  how  the  question  shouhi  be  de- 
cided. For  our  own  part,  we  claim,  upon  the  ground  of  this  example, 
the  undoubted  authority  of  the  Scriptures  of  eternal  truth  for  Presbyie- 

•Kiiigdorn  oi  Christ,  Essay  2d,  sec.  1,5.  t  Discourses,  pp.  41,  57. 


80  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

rian  ordination,  without  ihe  aid,  direction,  or  authority  of  Prelate  or 
Pope. 

Se  tion  5. — Timothy  ordained  by  Presbyters  to  the  rank  of  a  Pres- 
byter only. 

'J  he  second  instance  of  ordination  by  Presbyters  which  we  adduce,  is 
that  of  Timothy,  as  follows:  "Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  tliee, 
whicli  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
the  Presbytery."* 

Two  questions  here  arise  :  1.  Is  this  a  case  of  ordination  ?  If  so,  2. 
Who  were  the  ordainers  ?  To  th  se  questions  we  answer :  This  in  our 
judgment  is  the  record  of  Timothy's  ordination  ;  and  it  is  expressly  sta- 
ted to  have  been  performed  by  Presbyters,  These  two  points  we  shall 
now  endeavor  to  prove. 

1 .  Is  litis  a  case  of  ordination  ? 

Bishop  ()tey  seems  to  be  in  doubt  whether  this  passage  refers  to  Timo- 
thy's ordination  or  not.  Surely  tliose  doubts  must  be  strong  which  "  a 
study  of  twenty  years"  could  not  remove  !t  He  says,  as  already  quo- 
ted: "  We  do  not  find  mention  once  made  of  ordination  by  a  congrega- 
tion, or  by  a  council  of  Presbyters — on  the  contrary,  everywhere  the 
ministerial  authority  is  conferred  expressly  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  the  Apostles — not  only  of  the  twelve,  but  of  Paul  and  Barnabas — of 
Timothy  and  'I  itus.  One  single,  solitary  passage  occurs  where  the  lay- 
ing on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  is  mentioned.  [I.  Tim.  4:  14,  as 
above.]  And  even  in  that  case,  we  do  not  know  that  an  ordination  was 
referred  to.  IJut  granting  that  it  was  an  ordination,  it  seems  that  the 
presence  and  action  of  an  Apostle  was  [were  ?]  necessary  to  give  it  va- 
lidity. For  St.  Paul,  referring  to  the  transaction,  let  the  authority  im- 
parted by  it  be  what  it  may,  says  expressly  it  was  by  the  putting  on 
of  his  hands.  " 

1  he  above  is  a  characteristic  specimen  of  Bishop  Otey's  logic.  It  is, 
as  usual,  made  up  of  assumption  and  assertion.  Let  us  dissect  it.  It  is 
assumed,  without  even  ap  attempt  at  proof,  1st.  That  the  Apostles  alone 
ordained — Presbyters  never,  2d  '1  hat  Barnabas,  Timothy,  and  Titus, 
were  Apostles.  .3d.  That  the  passage  where  Paul  speaks  of  laying  his 
hands  upon  Timothy,  (II.  'Jim.  1:  6,)  refers  to  Timothy's  ordination. 

•I.  Tim.  4:  14. 

tWhen  Bishop  Otey  piearhed  tlie  third  discourse  o<  the  series  at  Woodville,  Miss  ,  he 
caid  near  the  conclusion,  in  our  hearing,  in  substance,  (though  it  is  omiited  in  \.\\e  printed 
copy,)  that  "  lie  had  made  thisfubjecta  study  for  twenty  years,  had  given  all  the  power? 
of  his  mind  to  it.  and  though  he  had  had  no  early  prejudices  in  favor  of  r.piscopacy, 
yet  he  could  come  to  no  other  fwticlnpion?,  "  &c. 


THE    SCRIPTURAL   BASIS.  81 

4th.  That  Paul  was  present  at  the  time  of  the  "  laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  the  i'resbytery ''  u])on  the  head  of  Timothy.  5th.  That  if  I.  'J'im. 
4:  14,  does  refer  to  Timothy's  ordination,  then  the  two  passages  are  paral- 
lel, and  refer  to  the  same  event,  place,  and  time.  6lh.  That,  on  the 
supposition  that  the  5ih  assumption  be  true,  the  ordination  was  perform- 
ed by  Paul  alone,  and  not  m  any  part  by  the  Presbytery,  as  "his  pre- 
sence and  action  were  necessary  to  give  it  validity.  " 

Now,  indeed,  this  is  a  charming  exhibition  of  a  Prelate's  reasoning. 
Here  are  at  least  half  as  many  assumptions  as  there  are  lines  to  express 
them  !  And  they  are  assumptions,  too,  of  points  which  opposing  wri- 
ters dany  ;  and  yet  the  Bishop  seems  to  expect  that  they  are  to  be  taken 
for  granted  as  true,  without  even  an  attempt  at  proof!  Let  the  reader 
have  patience  and  we  shall  endeavor  to  disprove  them. 

In  disposing  of  'I'imothy's  ordination,  we  shall  of  necessity  meet  all 
the  foregoing  assumptions  except  the  2d.  and  4th.  The  2d.  will  be  re- 
served for  subsequent  examination.  As  to  the  4th,  all  we  have  to  say  is, 
let  it  he  proved.  Until  this  is  done,  we  shall  consider  the  simple  fact 
taken  for  granted,  as  of  no  weight,  pro  or  con.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  Paul  was  present. 

That  Timothy  was  ordained,  all  agree ;  and  that  the  record  of  his  or- 
dination is  found  in  one,  or  the  other,  or  both,  of  the  passages  above 
referred  to,  is  also  acknowledged  by  all  parties.  The  question  then 
arises — 

2.  Who  were  the  ordaincrs  ? 

Among  Prelatists,  there  are  several  theories.  Some  maintain,  (1.) 
That  he  was  ordained  by  Paid  alone,  and  refer  for  proof  of  it  to  II.  Tim. 
1:6.  Others,  (2.)  That  he  was  ordained  by  Pow/ a/one,  (II.  Tim.  1:6,) 
the  "laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,"  (I.  Tim.  4:  14.)  which 
occurred  at  the  same  time,  expressing  merely  "  concurrence, "  or  appro- 
bation. Others  still,  (3.)  That  he  was  ordained  by  Paid  and  the  Pres- 
bytery, but  that  the  word  here  rendered  "  Presbytery  "  means  the  "  col- 
lege of  the  Apostles.  "  Another  class,  (4.)  Agreeing  with  the  last,  ex- 
cept that  the  "  Presbytery  "  means  Prelates.  And  still  another,  (5.) 
That  Paul  alone  (II.  Tim.  1:  6,)  ordained  Timothy  to  the  office  or  rank 
of  a  Presbyter,  the  word  rendered  "  Presbytery"  (I.  Tim.  4:  li,)  mean- 
ing the  "  presbyterate, "  or  ministerial  office  to  which  he  was  ordained. 

These  are  the  principal  views  taken  by  prelatical  writers.  They  cer- 
tainly differ  widely  in  opinion.  Perhaps  they  have  heard  of  the  old 
adage  that  "  two  strings  to  the  bow  are  better  than  one.  "     Bishop  Otey 


82  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

does  not  state  to  which  view  he  inclines.     He  too,  may  hare  heard  of 

the  old  saw, 

"  V^'hon  Doctors  disagree, 
"  Dit^ci(jits  ih'  n  aie  iieo. " 

If  we  should  do  him  no  injustice  by  inferring  what  his  opinion  is,  we 
should  think  ii  might  accur  4  with  the  second  t)f  the  above  vi^ws.  But 
he  says  in  a  note  wnich  we  shall  examine  herealer,  that  the  word  ren- 
dered "  Presliytery  "  w;o^  sign ily  the  '•  council  »il'  the  Apostles.  "  lie 
has  ad  auced  several  views  of  I.  Tim.  4:  14,  all  of  hem  held  by  Prek- 
tists,  but  he  IS  carelul  not  to  tell  us  >  efinitcly  wh  ch   s  his. 

I.  I  he  first  prelalical  iheory  we  stiall  examine,  is.  That  Timothy 
was  ordained  by  I'aul  alone,  and  that  ihe  transaction  is  ncorded  as  lol- 
lovvs :  '»  U  herefre  1  put  thee  in  remembrance  that  thou  stir  up  the  gift 
of  Gud  which  is  in  thee  by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands.  "  * 

The  view  which  anti-prelalisls  generally  take  of  'I'imoihy's  ordina- 
tion, is,  that  he  was  orJaiued  l>y  Presbyters  alnie,  as  stated  in  1.  i  im. 
4:  14  ;  and  that  II.  'I  im.  1:  6,  where  Paul  speaks  of  the  "  putting  on  of 
my  bands,"  ref  rs  to  a  transaction  entirely  different  and  dislinel  from 
ordination.     Our  reasons  lor  this  are  as  follow  : 

1,  I  he  account  in  I.  I  im.  4:  14,  cannot  reasonably  be  referred  to  any 
other  tiaiis..clion  than  ordination.  Ihe  "laying  on  of  hands"  was  a 
ceremony  usually  employed  t  confer  some  spiritual  or  miriiculous  gift, 
or  to  ordam.t  it  is  generally  confined  to  these.  Bui  it  is  not  pretended 
that  this  passage  refers  to  any  spiritual  gift  conferred  by  "  the  Prtsbyier}  " 
di-iinct  Irum  ordination.  'I  his  ceremony,  therefore,  most  eviden  iy  re- 
fers U)  !  imolhy's  ordination  to  the  ministry,  eillier  in  whole  or  in  part. 
But  we  maintain  further,  that  this  passage  alone  refers  to  his  ordination, 
for 

2.  The  account  in  II.  Tim.  1:  6,  may  certainly  refer  to  the  bestow- 
ment  of  some  spiritual  or  supernalur.d  gilt  by  P<iul.  It  is  admitted  u::i- 
vers  tUy  that  Paul  was  in  the  liabit,  frequently,  of  commimicatiug  such 
gilts  by  the  laying  on  of  his  hinds,  "t  here  is  nothing  here,  therefore, 
as  in  the  other  pa.-^sage,  which  must  necessaiily  refer  this  to  'I  imo  hy's 
ordination;  but  this  may  naturally  reler  to  the  bestowmenl  of  some  .spiri- 
tual gift,  which  cannot  reasonably  be  predicated  of  the  other. 

'ihe  presumptive  evidence,  therefore,  antecedent  to  anything  posi- 
tively against  it,  sanctions  the  relerence  of  these  two  passages  to  the  con- 
ferring I  f  different  endowments  enlirr  y.      Hut 

•it.  Jiin.  1:6 

t  Mait.  19: 13 ;  Mark,  .^:  23 ;  Matt.  9: 18 ;  Acts,  28:  8 ;  I.  Tim.  5:  22  ;  Acts,  6:  6;  do. 
8:  17,  19;  do.  19:6. 


THE  SCRIPTURAL  BASIS.  83 

8.  We  maintain  that  IT.  Tim.  1:  6,  does  not  refer  to  Timothy's  ordi- 
nntion  at  all,  but  to  the  bestowment  of  a  spiritual  gift  or  gifts — ana  fur 
the  f  llovving  reasons  : 

(I.)  Fr.im  the  probabiWies  of  the  case.  We  know  that  Paul  was  in 
tlie  haliit  of  la)  iiig  his  hands  upon  the  lieads  ol  his  converts,  to  confer 
spiritual  gifts.  U  it  at  all  probable  that  he  w-uki  omit  to  bestow  j-uc'i 
gifts  upon  his  "son  I  iniothy  "  v/ho  was  his  iniitn.ite  Ciiupanion  and 
fellow-laborer?  ^;^y,  fr.  mi  what  we  know  of  'linioihy's  history,  it  is 
morally  certain  that  he  possessed  such  gilts.  Who,  then,  so  likrly  to 
bestow  them  as  Paul?  And  what  more  obvious  recount  of  such  bt•^l(■w- 
meiit  could  we  expect  than  in  the  passajje  before  us?  We  say,  there- 
fore, that  any  other  reference  of  this  pass^age  is  wh  lly  sralvilous,  in 
the  total  absence  of  any  necessity  fir  a  different  consiruction. 

(2  )  To  refer  this  passage  alone  to  Timothy's  ordination,  docs  not  ac- 
coni  with  ihe  ana/oay  'f  Scripture  in  other  cases  ol  ordination.  It  was 
very  common  for  a  single  in.tivi'lual  to  conler  spiritual  gifts  I'y  the  lay- 
ing on  of  his  hands.  'I'he  H(  ly  Gh(.sl  was  given  to  P.iul  in  this  man- 
ner by  Ananias  :  "And  Ananias  went  his  way  and  entered  into  the  houpe, 
atid  putting  hin  hands  on  f/iem,  said,  I'.rother  Saul,  the  Lord,  even 
Jesus,  that  appeared  unto  tl.ee  in  the  way  as  thou  earnest,  hath  sent  me 
that  thou  mighiest  receive  thy  sight,  and  be  filled  with  tue  Holy  Ghost. '^* 
P. ml  communicated  spiritual  gilts  in  the  same  mantier.  He  me  certain 
disciples  at  !  phesus  on  a  particular  occasitju,  and  when  he  "  had  loil 
his  hands  upon  them,  the  '/uli/  Ghost  came  upon  them,  and  they  spake 
with  toi'gues  and  prophesied,  "t  Now  we  assert,  (the  present  ca--e 
aside.)  th;it  not  one  clear  and  undoubted  example  can  be  produced  Irom 
i'cripture  where  only  a  single  individual  otliciated  at  an  ordinati  n.  Let 
him  who  affirms  the  contrary,  prove  it.  On  the  other  hand,  in  every 
clear  ca.'se  reconled,  a  jduraliiy  of  ministers  offjciaied.  J  W  hy,  then,,  we 
ask.  sh  dl  this  passage  be  so  inleipreied  as  to  do  vndeiice  to  ihe  analogy 
of  JSciipntre? 

(3.)  'ihe  reference  of  II.  Tim.  1:  6,  to  the  bestowment  of  spiritual 
gifts,  and  of  I.  im.  4:  14.  to  oniin.ition,  is  required  by  :he  luniruagr  of 
the  two  passages.  In  the  first,  I'aid  says  to  .  im  'thy  :  "  ^^  heic'oie.  I 
put  thee  in  remtmbr  nee,  that  thou  stir  up  tie  tift  <>l  God  whicli  is  in 
thee  by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands  "  In  the  second,  he  sa\s:  •'  ^<g- 
lect  not  ihe  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  uiven  tiiec  hv  prophecy,  wi;h 
th    laying  on  of  ihe  hands  ol  die  Pre.-hvtery. "      Now  notice  the  marked 

••'Ci^.  9:    17  t  .ICI.N  i'J:  (i. 

t  Acta,  6!  6;  do.  J3.  3 ;  do.  14:  23  i  I,  Tim.  4:  14,  «U ,  «io. 


84  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

difference  in  the  two  exhortations.  In  the  first  he  says :  "  Stir  up  the 
gift, ''  plainly  alluding  to  some  particular  grace  or  spiritual  endowment 
which  had  been  conferred  upon  '1  imothy.  But  in  the  other  he  says : 
♦'  Neglect  not  the  gift,''  as  plainly  referring  to  the  ministerial  office  con- 
ferred upon  him  by  the  Presbytery.  These  different  interpretations  are 
necessary  to  make  out  any  intelligible  meaning.  A  man  may,  it  is  true, 
neglect  his  gifts,  as  well  as  his  office;  but  it  would  be  absurd  for  one 
man  seriously  to  exhort  another  to  stir  up  his  office,  while  it  would  be 
perfectly  rational  to  exhort  him  to  stir  up  his  gifts.  So  in  the  case  before 
us.  We  may  well  conceive  how  the  Apostle  might  with  propriety  ex- 
hort his  "  son  Timothy  "  in  the  former  passage  to  "  siir  up,  "  or  foster, 
the  gift  of  supernatural  faith  or  wisdom  with  which  he  had  been  endow- 
ed ;  but  to  suppose  that  he  refers  to  Timothy's  ordination,  would  be  to 
place  him  in  the  ridiculous  plight  of  exhorting  his  spiritual  son  to  "  stir 
up  the  office  of  the  ministry  that  was  in  him  !  "  IJow  Timothy  would 
go  about  this  we  cannot  easily  imagine.  On  the  other  hand,  by  refer- 
ring the  latter  passage  to  his  ordination,  we  may  well  understand  Paul  as 
exhorting  him  "  not  to  neglect"  the  duties  of  the  ministerial  office.  An 
office  maybe  "neglected,"  but  not  "stirred  up,"  very  consistently. 
The  reference,  therefore,  of  I.  Tim.  4:  14,  to  ordination,  and  of  II.  Tim. 
1:  6,  to  the  bet-towment  of  spiritual  gifts,  is  demanded  by  the  only  con- 
sistent interpretation  of  the  language  in  both  cases.  This  latter  pas- 
sage, indeed,  is  the  only  one  in  the  New  Testament  in  which  the  word 
here  translated  "  stir  up  "  [ava^utrcvpdv)  is  employed  ;  but  it  occurs  in  the 
Epistle  of  Clemens  Romanus  to  the  Corinthians,  and  is  there  applied  to 
a  grace,  and  not  to  an  office,  as  follows  :  "  Let  his  faith,  then,  be  stir- 
red up  in  us"— 'Afafcdrttipjyoarw  ovv  tj  Ttiatii  avtov  iv  Tjfilv'  In  the  Septua- 
gint  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  the  word  occurs  only  once.  Gen. 
45:  27— ■'E^aVn^oav  8i  av-t<^  Tidv-ta  ■ta  ^tj^ivia  vrCo  'laarj^,  oiffa  sIhsv  ovt'oi  j.  tSuv 
5i  tai  ttjua|tt5,  as  artsotsiXsv  'luarj^,  Cjate  aval.aj5clv  a/iitov,  avs^uHvptjss  ■fo  tCvsv- 
fia  'laxw|3  -iov  rtarpbj  wiiiuv. — 'J  he  spirit  of  Jacob  their  father  revived,  or 
which  is  the  same  thing,  was  "  stirred  up." 

(4.)  The  context  of  II.  Tim.  1:  6,  plainly  shows  that  this  passage 
refers  to  spiritual  gifts  and  not  to  ordination  :  "  U  hen  I  call  to  remem- 
brance the  unfeigned  faith  that  is  in  thee,  which  dwelt  first  in  thy  grand- 
mother Lois,  and  thy  mother  Eunice,  and  1  am  persuaded  that  in  thee 
also ;  WHEREFORE,  I  put  thee  in  remembrance  that  thou  stir  up  the  gift 
of  God  which  is  in  thee  by  the  putting  on  of  ray  hands ;  for  God  hath 
not  given  us  the  spirit  of  fear,  but  of  power,  and  of  love,  and  of  a 
sound  mind ;  be  not  thou  therefore  ashamed  of  the  testimony  of  our 


THE    SCniPTURAL    BASIS.  85 

Lord,  nor  of  me  his  prisoner ;  but  be  thou  partaker  of  tho  afflictions  of 
the  Gospel  according  to  the  power  of  God."  Now  how  can  any  person 
who  carefully  weighs  the  force  of  these  words,  seriously  believe  that  the 
Apostle  Paul  makes  here  the  most  distant  allusion  to  Timothy's  ordina'ion? 
Is  it  not  evident  that  the  "  gift  of  God  "  which  Timothy  is  exhorted  to 
"stir  up,  "  and  which  was  given  him  by  the  laying  on  of  th3  Apostle's 
hands,  was  the  supernatural  gift  of  extraordinary  and  "  unfeigned  y'aji/i," 
of  uncommon  courage,  boldness,  and  confidence  in  God,  as  opposed  to  a 
"  spirit  of  fear?"  That  this  is  the  meaning  would  seem  to  be  as  plain 
as  language  could  well  make  it.  But  besides  all  this,  will  Prcla  is's, 
who  maintain  that  Paul  here  alludes  to  Timothy's  ordination,  and  that 
the  "  gift "  here  spoken  of  refers  to  the  ministerial  office,  please  to  inform 
us,  whether  indeed,  Tmiothy's  "grand-mother  Lois  and  mother  Eunice," 
had  been  also  inducted  into  the  ministerial  office  ?  The  same  "  gift,  " 
whatever  it  may  have  been,  which  Timothy  possessed,  "dv/olt  first  "  in 
them,  allowing  the  Apostle  Paul  to  judge.  If  he  refers  to  Timothy's 
qffi.ce,  doubtless  he  does  to  theirs.  Perhaps  Paul  had  previously  exhorted 
them  to  "  stir  up  "  their  office  too  !  But  on  the  other  hand,  if  Paul  moans 
by  this  "gift,"  extraordinary  faith,  as  he  evidently  does,  then  Timothy's 
mother  and  grand-mother  may  certainly  have  possessed  it,  for  such  an 
enJowmsnt  was  not  uncommon  among  even  private  Christians  of  both 
sexes  in  the  Apostolic  age. 

In  addition  to  this  array  of  testimony,  we  liave  tho  statements  of 
many  of  the  ablest  prelatical  writers  that  this  passage  means  just  what 
we  have  stated.  Archbishop  Wake  says  :  "  And  then  for  the  other  thing 
observed,  it  is  clear  that  the  very  imposition  of  hands,  did  in  those  days 
confer  the  Holy  Spirit  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  upon  those  who  were 
ordained  to  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel.  This  St.  Paul  intimates  to  Tim- 
othy, where  he  exhorts  him  to  stir  up,  -r'o  ;t:ap!'5;ua  the  gift,  that  is,  the 
extraordinary  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Avhich,  says  he,  is  in  thee  by  the 
imposition  of  my  hands,  11.  Tim.  1 :  6."*  Dr.  Bloomfield,  the  present 
Bishop  of  London,  says,  in  commenting  on  this  passage  :  "The  ancient 
commentators  and  the  earlier  moderns  have  rightly  seen,  that  it  [the  gift] 
must  mean  the  supernatural  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit."^  The  same  also 
was  the  opinion  of  the  learned  commentator,  Whitby,  and  Stillingfleet 
and  others. 

Now  if  the  above  evidence  and  concessions  bo  considered  decisive  in 
showing  that  II.  Tim.  1 :  6,  refers  to  the  conferring  of  spiritual  gifts,  and 

♦  Jjiscourse  on  ihe  authority  of  the  Apostolic  Father?,  tec,  17. 
t Critical  Digest,  in  loco. 

J?I  1 


86  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

not  to  ordination,  then  it  follows  from  the  terms  of  the  original  proposi- 
tion, that  we  have  an  account  of  Timothy's  ordination  in  the  other  pas- 
sage, as  follows  :  "Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given 
thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbyter)'." 
It  would  seem  that  no  possible  language  could  more  unequivocally  testify 
to  the  fact,  that  a  plurality  of  Presbyters  ordained  Timothy,  than  that  of 
the  passage  here  given.  A  plain  reader  would  certainly  say  that  Timo- 
thy was  presbyterially  ordained  ;  for  he  could  not  imagine  that  a  Presby- 
terian himself  would  have  chosen  to  word  the  account  dilTerently.  Had 
we  the  authority  to  "  change  the  Bible,"  which  Bishop  Otey  thinks  ne- 
cessary for  our  cause,  we  should  prefer  to  let  this  passage  stand  just  as 
it  is  in  the  original,  and  just  as  King  James'  translators  have  rendered 
it,  for  we  could  not  make  it  tell  more  pointedly  than  it  now  does  in  favor 
of  presbyterial  ordination. 

II.  The  second  prelatical  theory  respecting  Timothy's  ordination,  is — 
That  he  was  ordained  by  Paul  alone,  (11.  Tim.  1  :  G,)  and  that  the  "  lay- 
ing on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,"  (I.  Tim.  4 :  14,)   which    took 
place  at  the  same  time,  expresses  mere  *'  concurrence,"  or  approbation. 
In  the  faee  of  all  the  evidence  and  concessions  we  have  adduced  to 
show  that  the  two  passages  in  question  refer  to  different  matters  entirely, 
suppose  we  admit,  for  the  argument's  sake,  that  they  both  refer  to  Timo- 
thy's ordination,  and  that  the  Apostle  Paul  was  present  and  took  part,  and 
if  you  please  even  presided  on  the  occasion^what  then  ?     Does  it  follow 
that  Paul  alone  was  the  ordainer  of  Timothy,  and  that  "  the  Presbytery" 
merely  assented  ?     This  ought  to  be  proved.     It  cannot  justly  be  taken 
for  granted ;  for  there  is  nothing  in  the  simple  record  of  the  case  which 
demands  such  a  construction,  admittmg  that  the  two  passages  are  parallel 
and  both  refer  to  Timothy's  ordination.     Oa  the  contrarj'^,  this  construc- 
tion is  against  all  analogy.     There  is  no  instance  on  scriptural  record, 
where  the  ceremony  of  imposition  of  hands  was  ever  emyloycd  to  signify 
mere  assent  or  concurrence.     Let  him  who  affirms  the  contrary  produce 
the  case.     But  we  have  no  expectation  that  this  will  be  attempted.     The 
whole  prelatical  world  have  been  long  since  challenged  to  bring  forth 
but  one  such  case.     But  it  has  not  been  shown  and  cannot  be.     If  then, 
in  every  other  case,  by  all  the  persons  engaged,  this  ceremony  expressed 
authoritaiive  communication  of  gifts,  or  designation  to  office,  why  must 
it  not  have  expressed  the  same  in  the  ordination  of  Timothy  ?     Oh  !  that 
would  spoil  a  beautiful  theory ! 

Presumptive  evidence  and  all  analogy  being  thus  against  the  act  of 
"  the  Presbytery "  being  deemed  a  mere  "  concurrence,  "  let  us  now 


THE    SCRIPTURAL    BASIS.  87 

examine  the  only  direct  and  positive  argument  which  Prelatists  urge  to 
sustain  this  theory. 

Bishop  Hobart  says :  "  St.  Paul  ordained  Timothy  with  the  concur- 
rence of  the  Presbytery.  Allowing  that  by  the  Presbytery  [I.  Tim.  4 : 
14,]  is  meant  a  number  of  Presbyters,  it  is  evident,  from  a  comparison  of 
the  two  texts,  [I.  Tim.  4 :  14,  and  II.  Tim.  1  :  6,]  that  the  Presbj'ters 
imposed  hands  not  to  convey  authority,  but  merely  to  express  approbation. 
*By  the  putting  on  of  my  hands,'  ^with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
Presljytery. '  "*  The  Hon.  and  Rev.  A.  P.  Percival,  B.  C.  L.,  Chaplain 
in  ordinary  to  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain,  says :  "  The  preposition  in 
the  latter  [II.  Tim.  1  :  6,]  signifies  an  instrumental  cause,  8ta,  through, 
or  '  by  means  of  the  laying  on  of  my  hands  ;'  in  the  former  [I.  Tim.  4  : 
14,]  it  has  not  that  force,  being  jw^r'a,  together  with,  or  accompanying  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery.'  So  that,  even  if  it  could  be 
shown,  which  it  cannot,  that  by  the  Presbytery  were  meant  merely  Pres- 
b)1;ers,  such  as  we  now  understand  by  the  term,  it  would  still  remain  that 
Timothy's  ordination  was  ascribed  to  St.  Paul  as  the  instrumental  cause, 
and  not  to  the  Presbytery,  except  as  assisting  in  the  rite."f  Bishop  On- 
derdonk  says  :  "  That  such  a  distinction  [between  the  two  Greek  prepo- 
sitions as  above]  may  justly  be  regarded  as  intimating  that  the  virtue  of 
the  ordainuig  act  flowed  from  Paul,  while  '  the  Presbytery,'  or  the  rest  of 
that  body,  if  he  were  included  in  it,  expressed  only  consent.":}:  Dr.  How 
writes  :  "  It  is  known  to  every  Greek  scholar  that  6ta  (by)  signifies  em- 
phatically the  cause  of  a  thing,  while  (n-ta  (with)  denotes  emphatically 
nearness  of  situation,  agreement,"  &c.  "  The  two  words  6t»  and  fina. 
are  opposed  in  the  Epistles  to  Timothy.  The  circumstance  of  the  Apos- 
tle using  a  word  in  relation  to  himself  which  denotes  the  instrumental 
cause,  and  with  respect  to  the  Presbytery,  a  word  which,  particularly  as 
distinguished  from  bi.a  expresses  mere  agreement,  shows  clearly,  that  the 
authoritative  pov/er  was  vested  in  him,  and  that  the  act  on  the  part  of  the 
Presbytery  was  an  act  of  mere  concurrence. "§ 

The  above  named  Bishops,  Doctors,  and  Honorable  Chaplains,  will 
certainly  be  "  deemed  and  taken  "  to  be  competent  and  credible  witnesses 
for  Prelacy.  According  to  them,  the  whole  argument  for  stripping  the 
Presbytery  of  all  authority  in  Timothy's  ordination,  and  handing  it  over 
to  Paul,  "  signed,  sealed,  and  delivered,"  lies  in  the  different  and  opposing 
force  of  these  two  Greek  prepositions  ! ! !  Truly,  the  existence  of  the 
Christian  Church,  and  the  ecclesiastical  standing  of  ten  thousand  of  her 

•Companion  for  the  Fest.  and  Fasts.        t  Apology  for  the  Apostolical  Succession 
X  Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture.  §  Essays  on  Episcopacy. 


88  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

ministers,  are  now  In  close  quarters.  Could  we  invest  the  unfortunate 
Sia  and  fisifa  with  rational  existence,  they  would  doubtless  imagine  that 
the  days  of  the  Papal  Inquisition  had  returned.  Could  we  impart  to  them 
the  organs  of  speech,  they  would  certainly  cry  out  in  agony,  at  the  ex- 
cruciating tortures  to  which  they  are  here  subjected  upon  the  rack  of 
pi'elatical  criticism.  But  we  shall  examine  their  case,  and  see  if  the  bad 
treatment  they  have  received  at  the  hands  of  unskillful  Diocesan  Doctors 
cannot  be  remedied  by  the  timely  application  of  a  little  plain  sense. 

'J"he  prelatical  argument  is  concisely  this:  The  sole  authority  in  Tim- 
othy's ordination  was  conferred  by  Paul,  because  the  preposition  in  the 
passage  expressing  Paul's  action  f5ia,3  "  signifies  the  cause  of  a  thing," 
while  the  preposition  in  the  passage  expressing  the  act  of  the  Presby- 
tery (fista)  signifies  "  mere  concurrence."  If  this  argument  has  any 
meaning  in  it,  it  must  be  this — that  the  common,  established,  well  known, 
and  undisputed  signification  of  §ia,  indicates  the  "  cause  of  a  thing,"  and 
therefore,  this  is  its  meaning  in  the  passage  in  question,  (II  Tim.  1:6;) 
and  that  /xsta.  as  truly  signifies  "only  concurrence,  or  assent,"  in  its  or- 
dinary acceptation,  and  therefore,  that  its  meaning  must  be  the  same  in 
the  other  passage,  [I.  Tim.  1  :  14.]  Now  in  answer  to  the  foregoing 
parade  of  learned  criticism,  we  assert,  and  we  shall  ende^-vor  to  show,  1. 
That  6ta  does  not  always  indicate  "  the  cause  of  a  thing,"  but  that  it  ve- 
ry frequently  indicates  less.  2.  That  ^ista  in  its  ordinary  acceptation 
means  more  than  simple  "  assent,  consent,  or  concurrence ; "  and  that 
frequently  it  signifies  an  instrumental  cause  or  agency.  3.  'J  hat  there  is 
no  material  difference  in  the  common  signification  of  these  words  ;  and 
,  therefore,  that  whatever  authoritative  communication  may  be  indicated 
by  the  use  of  6ta  in  the  one  passage, — on  the  present  admission,  made 
only  for  argument's  sake,  viz,  that  ihey  both  refer  to  Timothy's  ordination, 
— is  as  really  and  fully  indicated  by  the  use  of  /xsta  in  the  other. 

1.  As  to  the  meaning  of  Aia. — The  prelatical  Doctors  say  :  "Ata  signi- 
fies emphatically  the  cause  of  a  thing,"  in  its  ordinary  acceptation.  We 
deny  it.  Where  the  meaning  of  a  word  cannot  well  be  determined  by 
its  use  in  a  particular  place,  it  must  evidently  be  determined  by  a  compa- 
rison with  its  use  in  other  places. 

Take  the  following  examples  from  Scripture  :  "  It  is  easier  for  a  camel 
to  go  through  (6ta)  the  eye  of  a  needle,  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God."*  "And  it  came  to  pass,  that  he  (our  Lord)  went 
through  (6ttt)  the  cornfields  on  the  Sabbath  day,"  dtcf  "  And  again  he 
entered  into  Capernaum  after  (8ta)  some  days."t  Many  more  examples 
*  Man,  19:  24.  tAlark,  2 :  23.  t  Mark,  2:  1. 


THE    SCRIPTURAL    BASIS.  89 

from  the  Scriptures  equally  in  point  might  be  given.  Now  we  ask,  what 
measure  of  Greek  scholarship  is  necessary  to  make  out  the  signification 
of  Sia,  as  the  "  cause  of  a  thing,"  in  the  above  passages?  N\  e  admit, 
without  heshation,  that  it  demands  a  larger  scope  than  we  possess.  If 
Prelatists  are  equal  to  the  task,  they  must  be  possessed  of  a  critical  acu- 
men which  is  peculiar,  if  not  characteristic. 

Take  the  loUowing  examples  from  classical  writers  :  "  Ata  avx'voi 
i^Xv^iv  axoxj;"* — the  point  went  ihrougli  [6ta]  his  neck.  "n«>.£XDj  uaiv 
6ta  Sorpos'l — the  axe  drove  ihrough  (6itt)  the  wood.  "  Oat'  tvpv  ptac 
Ilvx^u,v  bia  yatjjj":]: — which  flows  in  a  wide  stream  ihrough  (6ta)  the 
land  of  Pylos.  "  Eyco  6ta  vr^o^  Mv''^ — I  go  up  and  down  through  (6ta) 
the  ship.  "  ^^(vyov  bi  EM.aSoj-'ll — they  fled  through  (6ia)  Greece. — 
"Attroj  rcthLovhi  bta  vi^i'Kuiv  fitn''*!! — the  eagle  1  ushed  f/iroM^/j  [Sia]  the 
clouds  towards  the  plain.  "  Aia  xpovov  s^paxa  avtov"** — I  saw  him  after 
[bia]  a  long  time.  "Ac'  svbBxatov  £ttoi^'''\'\ — eleven  years  after  {bia.) — 
"  Tl.otaiJ.oi  bia  atabiuv  rtsvts  aia^Mvo/xn'Oi^j^'^ — the  river  appearing  to  be 
five  stadia  off  (bia.) 

Here,  also,  it  appears,  that  the  common  use  of  bia,  among  classical 
writers,  is  as  far  from  signifying  "  the  cause  of  a  thing,"  as  in  the  exam- 
ples from  the  New  Testament.  Dr.  Moor,  in  his  celebrated  Greek 
Grammar,  says  :  "This  preposition  [6ia]  in  its  original  import  signifies 
through.  It  indicates  motion  directed  through  a  certain  space  of  time ; 
and  if  attention  be  drawn  chiefly  to  the  space  or  medium  through  which 
the  motion  is  directed,  it  will  be  followed  by  the  genitive  ;  as,  nofuvoixevot, 
iia  tavtr^i  trji  ;i:wpa?i  journeying  through  this  country." 

2.  As  to  the  meaning  of  Mt-z^a. — Prelatists  say :  "  Msra  is  the  preposi- 
tion of  concurrence,  and  expresses  only  assent  or  approbation,"  &c.  Wo 
maintain  that  in  its  ordinary  acceptation  it  means  mo7-e  than  this;^nd 
that  it  signifies  very  frequently  the  histrumental  cause  or  agency  by  means 
OF  WHICH  a  thing  is  done.     The  following  cases  will  prove  this  : 

Examples  from  the  Scriptures:  "And  wli?n  the}^  Lad  ccme,  and  bad 
gathered  the  Church  together,  they  rehearsed  all  that  God  had  done  with, 
for  hy  means  of  y.ita']  them."§§  "  And  when  they  had  come  to  Jeru- 
salem, they  were  received  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  .ipostles  and  Elders; 
and  they  declared  all  things  that  God  had  done  with  [ox  hy  means  of  fteTo} 
them."|l||     In  both  these  passages,   Barnabas   and  Paul   are  relating 

*  Iliad,  17,  49.  f  Iliad,  3,  61.  t  Iliad,  5.  545. 

i  Odyssey,  12,  206.  ||  Ihad,  9,  474.  H  Iliad,  22,  309. 

**Xenoph.Cyrop.  1,4,28.  tt  Herodotus,  1,  62.  tt  Herodotus,  7,  30. 

«4  Acta,  14:  27.  1111  Acts,  15:  4. 


90  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

to  the  people  their  labors  among  the  Gentiles,  the  miracles  which  they  had 
wrought^  &c.  They  invariably  ascribe  their  success  to  God,  and  declare 
what  he  had  accomplished  through,  or  hy  means  o/,  their  instrumentality. 
Of  course,  then,  the  preposition  /ttsra  in  these  places,  although  in  our  ver- 
sion it  is  rendered  by  the  word  "with,"  has  the  full  force  of  denoting  the 
means,  or  instrumental  cause  by  which  the  matters  in  question  were  per- 
formed. It  consequently  means  more  than  "  assent,"  or  "  concurrence," 
&c.,  and  might  here  just  as  well  have  been  rendered  hy,  or  hy  means  of, 
as  "with." 

Examples  from  the  classics  :    "  Msr'    apsTfr;?  Ttputavuv"* — to  excel  by 

means  of  {juafa)   viitue.      •'  Xati'ao  6    tf^utovto  jitsra  Ttvoi-yi^  aicy.oio"'f — his 

hair  was  agitated  hy  {(is-ta)  the  blast.  "  Msta  xat.pov"'!^. — acccording  to, 
that  is,  connected  with  and  depending  upon  [^wsT'tt]  circumstances.  Dr. 
Moor  in  his  Grammar  remarks  :  "  With  the  genitive,  [the  case  used  in 
I.  Tim.  4  :  14,]  this  preposition  [^^fis'sa]  expresses  the  association  of  one 
thing  with  another,  So  as  to  be  in  some  way  dependent  upon  it,  or  occu- 
pying a  secondary  or  dependent  station  in  relation  to  it,  or  it  intimates 
participation  with  another  in  something  common  to  both."  He  gives 
many  examples — among  them  this  :  "  Hxaas  iov^  fvaysij  K%£oia.sv7^;  ^fta 
A^fivaiuv — Cleomenes  arid  {^fiB-ta,  that  is,  in  conjunction  with,  and  hy  the 
aid  of  2  the  Athenians,  drove  out  the  polluted."  In  these  examples  from 
the  classics,  it  will  be  seen  that  fie-ta  has  the  same  signification  substan- 
tially as  in  the  cases  cited  from  the  Scriptures,  viz  :  denoting  the  means, 
or  instrumental  agency,  by  which  a  thing  is  done.  Now  we  are  prepa- 
red to  show — 

3.  That  there  is  no  material  or  essential  difference  in  the  common 
signification  of  these  words,  (5ta  and  f^.B'ta ;)  and  therefore,  that  whatever 
autJBritative  communication  may  be  indicated  by  the  use  of  bia  in  the  one 
passage,  II  Tim.  1  :  6,  (on  the  supposition  that  they  both  refer  to  Timo- 
thy's ordination,)  is  as  really  and  fijliy  indicated  by  the  use  of  fitta  in  the 
other,  I.  Tim.  4  :  14. 

Notice  the  examples  from  Scripture  already  given,  as  compared  with 
others.  The  things  related  are  precisely  the  same  in  all  the  cases :  "  And 
fear  came  upon  every  soul ;  and  many  wonders  and  signs  were  done  hy 
ffita]  the  Apostles."§  "  And  when  they  had  come,  and  had  gathered  the 
Church  together,  they  rehearsed  all  that  God  had  done  with  [by  means 
of  lAfia]  them,  and  how  he  had  opened  the  door  of  faith  unto 'the  Gen- 
tiles."H     "Then    all  the   multitude  kept   silence,  and  gave   audience, 

* XenophjJi's  Memorabilia  of  SocrateSt  3, 5,  8.  tlliad,  23,  367. 

jTbucidides,  passim.  5  Acts,  2:43.  H  Acts,  14 :  27. 


THE    SCRIPTURAL    BASIS.  91 

to  Barnabas  and  Paul,  declaring  what  miracles  and  wonders  God  had 
wrought  among  the  Gentiles  hy  [6ta,]  them."*  "  And  when  they  were 
come  to  Jerusalem,  they  were  received  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  Apos- 
tles and  Elders ;  and  they  declared  all  things  that  God  had  done  with 
[hy  means  of  fxtta]  them.""}"  The  matters  here  spoken  of  in  these  seve- 
ral passages  relate  to  the  same  subject  not  only,  but  to  the  very  same 
things,  performed  at  the  same  time,  and  "through"  or  "by  means  of" 
the  same  instrumentality ;  and  yet,  in  some  cases,  one  of  these  famous 
prepositions  is  used,  and  in  other  cases  the  other.  He  has  "  optics  sharp 
I  ween  "  who  can  perceive  here  any  shade  of  diflerence  in  the  force  of 
these  two  words. 

As  to  the  examples  from  the  classics,  we  have  already  shown  that  the 
common  meaning  of  ^uta  is  hy,  through  or  by  means  of,  as  the  iustru- 
mental  cause.  Now,  we  are  willing  to  admit,  and  do  admit,  that  6ta, 
both  in  the  Scriptures  and  in  the  classics,  sometimes  signifies  an  instru- 
mental cause  or  agency,  though  this  is  not  its  primary  and  general  or 
even  usual  meaning.  But  what  we  contend  for  is  this  :  Whatever  6ta 
may  signify  in  its  fullest  and  most  extended  sense  as  denoting  a  "  cause," 
whether  indeed  efficient  or  only  instrumental,  jU.si'a  signifies  fully  as  much 
in  its  primary  and  common  acceptation;  and  more  than  is  expressed  by 
5ta  in  many  cases  which  have  been  cited.  That  this  is  true,  the  fore- 
going examples  fully  prove. 

Now  notice  an  example  or  tw^o  from  both  the  New  Testament  and  the 
classics,  of  the  use  of  Sta,  where  the  meaning  is  the  common  one,  (through 
or  by,)  but  where  it  is  translated  "  with,"  the  same  word  which  is  used 
to  express  the  meaning  of  /tsfa  in  I.  Tim.  4  :  14.  The  following  cases 
from  the  Scriptures  will  serve  as  a  specimen  of  many  more  :  "  Thou 
hast  thought  that  the  gift  of  God  may  be  purchased  with  {8ia)  money.":}: 
"  They  be  no  gods  which  are  made  with  hands,"  [8ia  ;^£tpov.]§  "  But  if 
thy  brother  be  grieved  with  (Sta)  thy  meat,"  &c.  "  For  meat  destroy  not 
the  work  of  God.  All  things  indeed  are  pure ;  but  it  is  evil  for  that  man 
who  cateth  with  (6ta)  offence. "||  In  the  classics  also,  5ta  is  translated 
"  with,"  by  distinguished  scholars  :  "  Ata  ;i;ftpcdi',"  with  the  hands. IT  "  At' 
o^^ax/^coi',"  with  the  eyes.**  Dr.  Moor  gives  examples  of  the  rendering 
of  Sto.  by  the  word  "  with,"  "  otj"  and  others,  where  the  signification  is 
still  the  common  one  :  "  Ata  ixsxavo^  ypa^sov,"  to  write  with  dia  [through 
the  means  of,]  inlf.  "  At'  e7i.i^avto;  stSwXa,"  idols  of  [_Sia,  through  means 
of,  as  a  material,]  ivory. 

♦Acts,  15:12.  t  Acts,  15:4.  t  Acts,  8  :  20. 

§  Acts,  18:  26.  II  Rom.  14  :  15,  20.  IT  Soph.  (Ed.  Col.  470. 

*•  Eurip.  Bacch.  722. 


92  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

From  all  the  foregoing  examples,  we  think  the  following  points  have 
been  conclusively  established :  1.  That  6ta  does  not,  in  its  usual  import, 
signify  "  the  cause  of  a  thing,"  as  alleged  by  Prelatists.  2.  That  jiura 
indicates  more  than  "mere  concurrence,  only  assent,"  (Sec;  and  that  it 
ordinarily  signifies  the  agency  or  instrument  in  conjunction  with  which, 
or  by  moans  of  which,  an  aclioa  is  perfjrniid.  3.  Tuat  although  51a 
sometimes  indicates  the  instrumental  agency  by  which  a  thing  is  done, 
yet  that  fisra,  to  say  the  least  ot  it,  quite  as  frequently  means  fully  as 
much  ;  and  therofore,  4.  That  there  is  no  essential  d.fierence  in  the  force 
of  these  words  as  frequently  employed  by  both  sacred  and  profane  writers. 
And  as  illustrating  and  confirming  this  proposition,  we  have  seen,  5, 
That  so  manifest  is  the  essential  identity  in  the  frequent  signification  ot 
these  words,  that  they  are  used  interchangeably  to  express  the  same  idea, 
in  the  Scriptures  and  Greek  classics  ;  and  consequently,  6.  That  in  the 
approved  translations  of  both  sacred  and  profane  writers,  both  preposi- 
tions are  frequently  rendered  by  each  of  the  words  ["  by,"  and  "  Avith,"] 
which  are  used  to  express  the  meaning  of  §ta  and  /xita  in  the  two  passa- 
ges under  consideration  ;  and  therefore  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude,  from 
all  the  foregoing  propositions,  7.  That  so  fai  as  the  argument  depends 
upon  the  force  of  these  tico  words,  judged  by  examples  of  their  use,  (and 
this  is  the  full  extent  of  the  prelatical  argument,)  there  is  no  good  reason 
to  believe  that  there  is  any  difierence  in  their  power  and  bearing  in  the 
two  passages  in  question,  but  that  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that 
they  have  the  same  force  in  these  places  ;  and  consequently,  that  what- 
ever authoritative  communication  is  expressed  by  Sta  in  the  one  passage, 
is  as  fully  expressed  by  ^ita  in  the  other ;  and  therefore,  (upon  the  pre- 
sent concession  which  only  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  we  make,  that 
they  both  refer  to  Timothy's  ordination,)  we  finally  and  unhesitatingly 
conclude,  8.  That  "  the  Presbytery  "  must  be  deemed  to  have  had  as  full 
a  share  in  conferring  power  in  the  ordination  of  Timothy,  as  the  Apostle 
Paul ;  and  consequently,  that  Timothy  was  ordained  to  the  office  of  a 
Presbyter,  by  a  "Presbytery,"  or  a  Council  of  Presbyters,  "properly  so 
called  " — all  this  ado  about  6ta  and  imna,  raised  seemingly  to  frighten 
common  people  cut  of  their  wits,  to  the  condary  notwithstanding. 

Here  we  leave  this  whole  business  to  the  two  Greek  prepositions ; 
and  we  submit  to  the  good  sense  of  the  reader,  whether  this  famous  pre- 
latical  argument  for  depriving  the  Presbytery  of  all  authority  in  Timo- 
thy's ordination,  be  not  fairly  overthrown,  and  our  position  sustained. 
That  cause  must  be  weak  indeed,  which  would  employ  this  puerile  and 
erroneous  criticism  as  an  argument  in  its  support.     "  Drowning  men 


THE    SCU1I'TUR.\L    RASIS.  93 

catch  at  straws.''  The  plain  and  unsophisticated  reader  of  God's 
Word,  whether  in  the  original  language  or  in  that  of  the  common  En- 
glish version,  would  unhesitatingly  say  that  Timothy  was  ordained  by 
"the  Presbytery,"  and  whether  this  were  done  hy  their  hands  or  with 
their  hands  would  be  a  small  matter  to  him. 

But  iiupjjose  after  what  has  been  said,  we  admit  all  that  has  been 
claimed  on  this  point  by  this  class  of  our  opponents — that  Paul  alone 
did  ordain  Timothy,  and  that  the  Presbytery  only  expressed  ^'assent'* 
— then  we  ask,  to  what  office,  rank,  or  station,  in  the  ministry,  was 
Timothy  ordained!  It  will  be  borne  in  mind,  that  Prelatists  generally, 
if  not  universally,  insist  that  Timothy  was  ordained  to  the  rank  of  a 
Prelate,  or  Diocesan  Bishop.  He  is  frequently  in  this  sense  styled 
"Bishop  of  Ephesus."*  The  "Bishop  of  Tennessee"  gives  him  this 
rank,  besides  stating  more  than  once,  (which  statement  we  shall  notice 
hereafter,)  that  he  was  an  "Apostle,"  and  is  "called  an  Apostle,"  &c. 
Well,  how  was  the  "Bishop  of  Ephesus"  ordained]  The  Prelatist 
answers,  "By  Paul  alone,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Pres- 
Injterylo  express  concurrence,  assent,"  &c.  But  herein  is  a  marvelous 
thing !  Preshijters  impose  hands  at  the  consecration  of  a  Diocesan 
Bishop  !!  Who  overheard  of  such  a  thing?-  Why,  this  sets  at  naught 
all  the  canons,  precedents,  and  practices  of  "the  Church"  which  the 
world  has  ever  seen  !  It  is  neither  according  to  the  practice  of  the 
Church  of  England,  nor  of  "her  daughter  in  this  country,"  for  mere 
Preshytcrs  to  impose  hands  in  the  consecration  of  a  Bishop  for  any  pur- 
pose, either  to  convey  authority,  or  to  express  "assent;"  nor  would  it 
be  canonical.  We  know  it  is  both  according  to  the  practice  and  the 
canons  of  "the  Church,"  for  Presbyters  to  lay  on  hands  with  the  Pre- 
late in  the  ordination  oi Preshytcrs,  but  not  in  the  ordination  of  Bishops. 
To  maintain,  then,  that  Timothy  was  ordained  a  Diocesan  Bishop,  and 
that  this  was  done  by  Paul,  "with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  o//7/e 
Presbytery,"  either  to  express  the  conferring  of  authority,  or  to  signify 
"assent,"  or  any  thing  else  that  may  please  the  fancy,  is  to  declare  that 
we  have  a  jdain  Scripture  precedent  in  the  clearest  Apostolic  example, 
which    "the   Church,"    the    very  Church  which   declares   it,  neither 

*"l'imuihy  was  uudeiiiabiy  iiitiut'ied  wiih  ipiscopal  authority  in  the  Church  of 
Ephesus :  he  was  the  Bishop  of  ihat  place."— iZfi;.  F-  Beasley.  "The  Church  of 
Ephesus  had,  in  Timothy,  a  lifsA.p,  possessing  jurisdiction  over  the  other  clergy,  and 
exercising  all  the  powers  which  are  claimed  for  the  Bishop  of  the  Church  now."— JPr 
How.  "Timothy  and  Titus  ordnined  mini.sters  in  their  respective  I>toce«es  of  Ephesus. 
find  Creie.'"— Bishop  Uolart.  These  s:niements  are  sufficient  to  show  that  Prelatists 
assert  that  Timothy  was  "  Bishop  of  ihe  Diocese  of  Ephesus." 

M 


9^4  Plirr.AOY    EXAMIMEl). 

observes  in  lier  practice,  nor  legards  as  canonical !  We  leave  Prela- 
tists  to  make  out  their  consistency  as  best  tliey  can.  Manifestly  accord- 
ino-  both  to  Episcopal  canons  and  practice,  Timothy  could  not  have 
been  ordained  to  any  higher  rank  than  that  of  a  Presbyter  as  long  as 
Presbyters  imposed  hands  upon  him  in  the  transaction,  whether  it 
were  to  confer  authority,  or  only  to  assent  to  it. 

III.  We  now  come  to  the  third  theory  which  Prelatists  advance  on 
the  subject  of  Timothy's  oi-dlnation. 

To  destroy  his  Preshyterial  orders  at  all  hazards,  many  Prelatists, 
W\t\\  2Je7-haps  the  "Bishop  of  Tennessee"  included,  give  another  turn  to 
the  "wheel  of  fortune,"  and  up  comes  a  new  ticket  entirely,  which 
reads  that  by  "the  Presbytery"  in  I  Tim.  4:  14,  is  not  meant  Presby- 
ters, but — what  does  the  reader  think  1 — some  say  "the  College  of  the 
Apostles,"  some  say  a  "Council  of  Diocesan  Bishops,"  some  say  "the 
Presbyterate,"  meaning  the  ojfice  to  which  Timothy  was  ordained — 
some  this,  and  some  that — any  tiling  it  would  seem  but  what  the 
Word  of  God  plainly  teaches — any  thing  to  prevent  Timothy  being 
ordained  a  Presbyter  by  Presbyters. 

This  diversity  of  sentiment  forcibly  reminds  one  of  a  certain  "tumult 
atEphesus,"  (Timothy's  own  "Diocese,")  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  The  scene  is  laid  in  "the  theatre."  Paul  had  been  preach- 
ing the  Gospel,  in  consequence  of  which  the  indignation  of  the  Avorship- 
pers  of  the  false  goddess  was  excited.  The  makers  of  the  "silver 
shrines"  saw  that  their  "craft  was  in  danger."  The  people  were 
aroused,  and  "rushed  with  one  accord  into  the  theatre."  "Some  said 
one  thing,  and  some  another,  and  the  more  part  knew  not  wherefore 
they  were  come  together."  But  there  was  one  sentiment  in  which 
they  were  united:  "All  with  one  voice  about  the  space  of  two  hours 
cried  out,  Great  is  Diana  of  the  Ep7tesians/" 

It  can  scarcely  admit  of  a  question,  that  the  world  has  seen  less  strik- 
ing similes  than  that  here  presented  between  the  people  of  Ephesus 
and  modern  prelatical  Doctors.  The  latter,  like  their  ancient  px'Oto- 
types,  "cry,  some  one  thing,  and  some  another,"  when  casting  about 
for  means  to  despoil  poor  Timothy  of  his  Preshyterial  orders,  and 
perhaps  like  them  too  "the  more  part  know  not  wherefore;"  but  there 
is  one  sentiment  in  which  ail  the  hierarchy  agree.  They  "rush  with  one 
accord" — not  "into  the  theatre"  to  be  sure — but  to  the  determination 
to  make  Timothy,  at  all  costs,  a  full-grown  Diocesan,  and  "with  one 
voice  cry  out,  Great  is  Timotliy  of  the  Ej^hesiansi" 

The  thii-d  prelatical  theory  for  Timothy's  ordination  is  this :  that  he 


THE    SCRIPTURAL    BASIS.  95 

was  ordained  by  Faul  and  the  Presbytery,  (comparing  II.  Tim.  1 :  6, 
with  I.  Tim.  4  :  14,)  but  that  the  word  rendered  "Presbytery"  in  the 
latter  passage  means  the  "College  of  the  Apostles." 

Bishop  Otey  says:  "in  answer  to  the  Presbyterian  gloss  on  these 
words,  (I.  Tim.  4:  14,)  we  say:  the  word  Presbytery  does  not  necessa- 
rily signify  a  body  of  Presbyters,  properly  so  called.  It  is  as  justly  ap- 
plicable to  a  Council  of  Apostles — for  every  Apostle  was  in  virtue  of 
his  office  a  Presbyter,  but  it  by  no  means  follows  that  every  Presbyter 
was  an  Apostle."* 

Bishop  Hobart:  "By  the  Presbytery  (I.  Tim.  4:  14,)  may  be  under- 
stood a  number  of  Apostles  who  laid  their  hands  on  Timothy,  since 
the  Apostles,  though  certainly  superior  to  Presbyters,  style  themselves 
Elders  or  Presbyters."! 

The  Hon.  and  Rev.  Mr.  Percival :  "As  it  is  undeniable  from  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  John,  that  the  Apostles  frequently  desig- 
nated themselves  as  Presbyters,  we  are  at  perfect  liberty,  provided 
there  is  nothing  in  the  context  to  forbid  it,  [and  he  afterwards  says 
there  is  not,]  to  understand  the  College  of  the  Apostles  to  be  intended 
in  this  place,  (I.  Tim.  4:  14.)  In  this  sense,  accordingly,  in  the  early 
ages,  all  the  commfrfkitors  understood  the  passage. "|  Whether  Mr. 
Percival  is  right  in  affirming  that  ''all  the  comentators"  support  him, 
we  shall  see. 

The  whole  gist  of  the  argument  in  the  above  extracts  is  this  :  The 
Apostles  are  sovietlmes  called  Presbyters — therefore  the  term  Presbytery 
in  this  passage  may  be  applied  to  the  collective  body  or  College  of  the 
Apostles.  By  the  way,  'tis  passing  strange  that  men  who  so  contemp- 
tuously discard  the  interchangeable  use  of  terms  (Bishop  and  Presby- 
ter, for  example,)  as  of  no  value  in  settling  their  meaning,  should  so 
suddenly  fall  in  love  with  a  secfning  interchange  only,  and  so  deeply 
too,  as  quite  to  turn  the  brain  and  laid  to  such  surprising  results  in  logic! 
The  question  here  is  not  what  this  term  may  mean,  but  what  docs  it 
meani  and  what  does  it  mean  in  this  passage  ]  We  must  detei'mine  the 
meaning  of  this  word  by  the  same  rule  befcre  mentioned  in  like  cases 
— by  examples  of  its  use  elsewhere.  What,  then,  is  its  meaning  in  other 
places  ]  and  so  far  as  analogy  may  serve  to  guide  us,  what  is  its 
meaning  here  ?     W^e  reply — 

1.  There  is  no  other  instance  in  the  whole  New  Testament,  (admit- 
ting for  the  moment  this  to  be  one,)  where  tliis  word  is  applied  to  the 

*  Discourses  p.  41,  iioie. 

t  Companion  for  the  Vest,  and  Fa^ts. 

:{:  Apology  for  Aiiostoliuul  .Suci'cssioii. 


96  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

collective  body  of  the  Apostles.  This  word  occurs  but  three  times  in 
the  New  Testament,  as  follows:  "And  as  soon  as  it  was  day,  the  Elders 
(rtpfO/SuT'tptoi')  of  the  people,  and  the  chief  priests,  and  scribes,"  &c.* 
''As  also  the  high  priest  doth  bear  me  witness,  and  all  the  estate  of  the 
Elders,"  (rtp£tT/jureptoi'.)t  The  only  other  place  is  in  the  passage  under 
consideration  :  "With  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery," 
(rtpscr/SvT'lptoD.)!  No  one  will  pretend  that  in  the  first  two  examples  this 
term  can  refer  to  the  "College  of  the  Apostles."  It  must  and  does,  in 
these  cases,  mean  Presbyters  or  Elders  properly  so  called.  All  analogy 
therefore  goes  to  show  that  in  the  verse  in  question  it  means  the  same. 

2.  Prelatical  writers  have  been  challenged  to  produce  a  single  in. 
stance  even  from  the  writings  of  their  particular  friends,  the  early  Fa- 
thers, where  the  Apostles  as  a  collective  body  are  called  a  Presbytery. 
As  they  have  not  done  it,  it  is  natural  to  suppose  they  cannot,  as  they 
wage  this  controversy  with  the  peculiar  weapons  of  "primitive  anti- 
quity." Precedents  then  are  wanting,  not  of  the  use  of  this  word,  but  of 
its  use  in  the  alleged  sense,  either  in  the  Scriptures  or  by  the  early 
Fathers.  The  _^we6M?Mp^«o»  is  therefore  against  the  prelatical  inter- 
pretation of  it  in  I.  Tim.  4:  14. 

3.  Many  of  the  ablest  commentators,  ancient  and  modern,  prelatical 
and  anti-prelatical,  agree  with  us  in  our  interpretation,  that  by  the  term 
"Presbytery"  in  1.  Tim.  4:  14,  is  meant  a  council  of  Presbyters -pro-^ex- 
ly  so  called.  The  Rhemist  translators  of  the  New  Testament  render 
the  passage  "with  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  Priesthood,"  and  jus- 
tify their  translation  by  the  canon  of  the  ancient  Council  of  Carthage, 
which  i-equires  all  the  Priests  to  lay  their  hands  upon  the  head  of  the 
Priest  taking  orders.  The  learned  Father  Jerome  adopts  our  construc- 
tion of  this  passage,  and  appeals  to  it  to  'prove  that  Bishops  and  Presby- 
ters are  equal.  The  very  ancient  Syriac  version  (thought  by  many  to  be 
the  most  ancient  extant)  renders  the  passage,  "with  the  hands  of  the 
Presbytery"  The  Arabic  and  the  Vulgate  versions:  "with  the  hands  of 
Presbyters."  Suicer  in  his  Thesaurus  says :  "an  assembly,  congregation 
and  college  of  Pres^ie/-*  in  the  Christian  Church."  Cyprian  uses  it 
for  a  "consistory  o^  Presbyters."     Grotius  in  his  commentary  on  this 

.  passage  says  :  "The  custom  was  that  the  Presbyters  who  were  present, 
placed  their  hands  on  the  head  of  the  candidate,  at  the  same  time  with 
the  presiding  officer  of  their  body,"  {c^lm  ccetus  sui  frinriiie.)  Dr. 
Macknight  commenting  on  this  passage,  says:  "This  is  gener;illy  under- 
stood of  the  Eldership  of  Lystra,  who,  it  is  supposed,  were  the  brethren 
*  Luke  22:  66.  t  Acts,  22:5.  $  I.  Tun.  4  :  14. 


Till:    SCUIPILKAL    BASIS.  HT 

who  recommended  Timothy  to  the  Apostle,  Acts  16  :  3,  But  Es- 
tius,"  continues  Macknight,  "thinks  the  EldcrsJajy  of  Ephesus  \&  here 
meant." 

Besides  the  above  commentators,  to  whom  a  host  both  ancient  and 
modem  might  be  added,  notice  the  following  decisive  testimony  of 
prelatical  writers. 

Says  Dr.  Bloomfield  the  present  Bishop  of  London  in  his  Critical 
Digest :  "I  cannot  agree  with  Benson  that  the  Elders  did  not  confer 
this  gift.     They,  it  should  seem,  contributed  to  confer  it." 

Says  Lord  Barrington  in  his  works  :  "The  Presbytery,  or  all  the 
Presbyters  at  Derbe  and  Lystra,  laid  their  hands  on  thee."  Says  Sara- 
via  :  "They  (Timothy  and  Titus)  were  ordained  by  the  imposition  of 
the  hands  of  the  Preshytery  no  less  than  the  others  who  were  subse- 
quently set  over  the  church  in  every  city." 

Says  Archbishop  Potter  in  his  famous  work  on  Church  Government: 
"There  was  a  Presbytery  or  College  of  Elders  in  the  place  where  Ti- 
mothy was  oi'dained,  for  it  was  by  the  imposition  oi  their  hands  he 
received  his  orders."  Here  the  learned  Archbishop  not  only  concedes 
the  present  point,  that  by  the  term  "Presbytery"  is  to  be  understood 
"«  hody  of  Preshyters  properly  so  called,^''  but  he  also  acknowledges 
that  "it  was  by  the  imposition  oi  their  hands"  that  Timothy  ^'received 
his  orders^' — thus  conceding  all  that  we  ever  claim  for  Timothy's 
Presbyterial  ordination. 

The  above  witnesses  are  quite  sufficient  to  show  the  truth  of  our  po- 
sition, that  many  of  the  most  distinguished  commentators  and  wi"iters, 
ancient  and  modern,  prelatical  and  anti-prelatical,  support  our  inter- 
pretation, understanding  the  term  "Presbytery"  1  Tim.  4  :  14,  in  its 
plain  and  obvious  sense  to  mean  a  Council  or  '^hody  of  Preshyters  jno- 
perly  so  called.''^ 

Here  we  leave  the  reader  to  form  his  own  judgment  of  Mr,  Per- 
cival's  veracity,  or  learning,  or  prejudice,  or  any  thing  else,  in  stating 
that  "all  the  commentators  in  the  early  ages  understood  the  College 
of  the  Apostles  to  be  intended  in  this  place."*  And  we  also  ask  the 
reader's  attention  to  Bishop  Otey's  candor  in  calling  our  interpreta- 
tion of  this  passage  a  "Presbyterian  gloss  on  these  words,"!  We  have 
shown,  (1.)  that  our  construction  of  the  term  "Presbytery"  in  this 
place  is  the  only  construction  which  the  Scripture  sanctions  in  every 
other  instance  where  it  is  used  ;  (2.)  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature 

^  This  work  of  Mr.  i-'ercival  is  re-published  in  New  York  by  the  "Protestant  Episcopa  1 
Tract  Society."  Oi  course  it  id  sanctioned  by  the  High  Dignitaries  ol^Ae  Church  in 
the  United  States. 

t  Discourses,  p.  41>  note- 


90  PKELACY    EXAMINED. 

of  the  subject  or  in  the  context  which  requires  here  a  different  interpre- 
tation ;  (3.)  that  our  view  in  thus  ytecessitated  by  all  the  acknowledged 
principles  of  interpretation  which  bear  upon  the  case ;  (4.)  and  that 
it  is  corroborated  by  the  deliberate  and  recorded  judgment  of  the  most 
distinguished  writers  and  commentators  of  all  parties  in  ancient  and 
modern  times.  We  now  ask,  in  view  of  all  this,  where  the  "gloss"  is 
to  be  found? — evidently  on  the  other  side  !  But  possibly  we  may  not 
be  justified  in  calling  in  question  the  candor  of  the  "Bishop  of  Tennes- 
see" touching  the  "gloss."  A  man  who  follows  so  brilliant  a  luminary 
as  the  Hon.  Mr.  Percival  may  easily  become  enveloped  in  a  fog,  and 
may  really  imagine  that  he  sees  all  things  with  a  peculiar  lustre,  just 
because  he  sees  nothing  at  all — but  fog  ! 

But  now,  after  the  overwhelming  sujJj^ort  which  has  been  brought  to 
fortify  our  interpretation  of  this  word,  suppose  we  admit,  for  argu- 
ment's sake,  and  against  all  Scripture,  reason,  common  sense,  and 
abundant  authority,  that  the  term  "Presbytery"  in  this  place  does 
mean  the  "College  of  the  Apostles" — what  then  follows  %  Plainly  this 
— that  in  ordination  the  A'postles  acted  only  as  Presbyters.  This  was  an 
exercise  of  their  ordinary  ministerial  functions,  therefore,  and  not  pe- 
culiar to  their  Apostolic  character.  The  admission,  then,  should  we 
freely  make  it,  would  not  help  the  cause  of  Prelacy  in  the  least,  while 
it  would  perfectly  consist  with  what  we  contend  for,  and  directly  con- 
firm it. 

But  further.  This  position,  whether  we  admit  it  or  not,  w^orks  awful 
havoc  to  Prelacy  in  divers  ways.  The  argument  that  the  term  "Pres- 
bytery" in  this  passage  means  the  "College  of  the  Apostles,"  is  as 
complete  a  felo-de-se  as  ever  was  committed  !  It  demolishes  at  one 
blow  the  entire  fabric  which  the  hierarchy  have  built  for  Timothy's 
prelatical  ordination,  founded  upon  their  previous  arguments.  Look  at 
it:  (1.)  It  takes  from  Paul  the  sole  "virtue"  in  Timothy's  ordination 
which  Bishop  Otey  and  others  ascribe  to  him,  and  distributes  it  equally 
among  all  the  members  of  the  Apostolical  College  !  This  theory  then 
cuts  up  by  the  roots  i\\e,  first  theory  broached,  that  Paul  was  the  sole 
ordainer  of  Timothy.  For  if  by  "the  Presbytery"  is  meant  the  "College 
of  the  Apostles,"  each  of  the  other  members  of  the  "College"  must 
have  had  a  hand  in  conferring  power  as  really  and  as  fully  as  Paul. 
The  only  possible  way  to  recoricile  these  conflicting  theories  is  to  sup- 
pose that  Paul  possessed  a  svperiority  oxer  the  other  Apostles,  and  that 
while  they  all  laid  hands  on  the  head  ofTimnthy,  Paul  only  was  the 
real  ordainer!  Was  Paul  then  a  Pope  a.mong  the  Apostles  ?  Or  do  these 


THE    SCRIPllKAL    BASIS.  99 

prelatical  theories,  advanced  by  the  savie  men,  cut  each  other's  throats  1 
But  (2.)  The  theory  that  by  the  "Presbytery"  is  meant  the  "College 
of  the  Apostles,"  at  once  demolishes  the  second  argument  of  Prelatists 
for  destroying  Timothy's  Presbyterial  orders,  founded  upon  the  alleged 
distinction  in  the  force  of  the  two  famous  Greek  propositions,  bia  and 
fxi-ca !  For  if  the  "Presbytery"  were  Apostles,  they  were  something 
more  than  "mere  concurring"  or  "assenting"  lookers  on,  or  Paul  was  a 
Pope  among  them.  We  are  puzzled  to  understand  this  variety  of 
schemes.  It  is  with  some  however,  very  convenient  to  possess  the 
faculty  of  blowing  hot  and  blowing  cold  as  circumstances  may  suit. 

IV.  The  next  theory  invented  by  Prelatists  for  Timothy's  ordina- 
tion is  the  same  as  the  last,  except  that  by  "the  Presbytery,"  (1.  Tim. 
4  :    14,)  is  meant  a  "Court  of  Prelates,  or  Diocesan  Bishops." 

We  shall  dispatch  this  theory  in  few  words.  We  are  not  certain  that 
the  "Bishop  of  Tennessee,"  advocates  it,  though  he  refers  us  to  "an- 
cient and  wise  men,"  who  did  maintain  it.  Neither  are  we  sure  on 
what  ground  it  is  maintained  by  any,  except  it  be  on  the  basis  of  taking 
for  granted  the  very  thing  to  be  proved, — that  there  is  a  real  distinc- 
tion in  Scripture  between  Bishop  and  Presbyter,  and  that  such  an 
order  as  Diocesan  Bishops  was  established  by  the  Saviour — both  which 
positions  we  deny,  and  both  which  we  have  already  disproved. 

This  theory  was  held  by  some  of  the  early  Fathers,  and  Prelatists 
have  adopted  it  on  their  authority.  Two  out  of  the  three  Fathers  cited 
by  Mr.  Percival  and  Bishop  Otey,  say  that  Paul  means  by  the  term 
"Presbytery"  in  this  passage,  (not  "Apostles"  as  they  strangely  allege,) 
but  Bishops;  that  is.  Diocesan  Bishops  or  Prelates.*  But  we  ask,  by 
what  authority  do  these  "Fathers"  thus  pervert  the  Word  of  God  1 
Chrysostom  is  doubtless  l\\e  father  of  this  perversion.  Paul  affirms  that 
it  was  "tlie  hands  of  the  Presbijtery'^  which  were  laid  upon  Timothy. 
Chrysostom  asserts  that  "he  does  not  here  speak  of  Presbyters  at  all, 
(rtfpi  rtpf fffjvrf pwi')  but  of  PyT^/^lt'.?,  (rtfpt  £7tt(jxortuji')!"  Thus  the  mistake 
of  Paul  must  be  set  right  by  the  knowledge  of  a  Father  of  the  4th  cen- 

*  Uishop  <  Hey  tays  :  'But  let  us  see  how  ancient  and  wise  men  understood  the  term 
'Pntbyiery' MS  hi. re  used  by  6t  FmuI.  St.  Chrysostom  says:  'Hj  (St.  Paul)  does  not 
here  speak  of  fre.-bycers,  hut  Bishops  :  for  Presbyters  do  not  ordain  a  Bishop.'  Theo- 
dort :  'In  .his  place  he  calls  those  Presbyters  (i  e.  old  men)  who  had  received  tiie  graco 
of  the  Aposiieship.'  Theophylact:  'Thai  is,  of  Bishops;  for  Presbyters  donot  ordain 
a  Mishop  "'— Z>i5ccMr«£s,  p.  il.  Note. 

Mr.  l^eicivai  cites  thib  same  trio  of  Pathers;  and  from  the  identity  of  the  witnesses 
aiul  of  t'le  oiijcci  for  wiiich  ihey  aie  liad,  we  pretunie  Bishoji  Oiey  copies  from  his 
Eng  ibh  f.iend. 


1(H)  I'UKLACY    EXA3llMi;i>. 

tiiry  !  This  construction  outrages  every  rule  for  the  interpretation  of 
language.  It  is  a  palpable  contradiction  and  not  an  exposition  of 
Scripture. 

But  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  cuts  as  sorry  a  figure  in  logic  as 
he  does  in  exegesis.  "He,"  the  Apostle,  says  Chrysostojn,  "is  not 
speaking  here  of  Presbyters,  but  of  Bishops  ;  foi'  Presbyter's  did  not 
ordain  a  Bishop.''^  He  takes  for  granted  the  very  thing  to  be  proved, 
that  Timothy  was  ordained  a  Prelate;  and  of  coui'se  to  allow  that  a 
Prelate  could  be  ordained  by  Presbyters,  would  level  the  whole  hie- 
rarchy with  the  dust.  Paul  had  used  a  very  hiconvenient  word  for 
their  high  mightinesses.  They  must  get  rid  of  it  in  some  way,  or 
Ichabod  is  written  upon  the  whole  prelatical  fabric.  They  must  make 
his  words  tally  with  the  corruptions  and  usurpations  of  the  4th  century  ; 
and  therefoi'e,  to  make  short  work  wilh  the  Apostle,  the  "golden- 
mouthed"  preacher  flatly  contradicts  him  !  Timothy  was  ordained  by 
a  "Presbytery"  says  the  Apostle.  He  was  ordained  by  a  "council  of 
Prelates,"  says  Chrysostom.  "But  I  affirm,"  says  Paul,  "it  was  a  body 
o? Presbyters^  "Nay,  but  you  are  mistaken,  friend  Paul;  it  was  a 
court  of  Prelates."  Now  who  is  right,  Mr.  Percival  and  Bishop  Otey  1 
"Oh  ! — ah  ! — Chrysostom,  to  be  sure  !" 

We  dismiss  this  point  simply  by  calling  the  reader's  attention  to  the 
fact  that  nearly  every  argument  brought  to  disprove  the  third  theory  for 
Timothy's  ordination  applies  with  equal  force  to  the  one  now  under  con- 
sideration. (1.)  There  is  no  instance  in  the  New  Testament  of  the  word 
rendered  "Presbytery"  being  applied  to  a  body  of  Diocesan  Bishops. 
(2.)  Commentators  of  all  parties,  as  already  shown,  explain  the  term  to 
mean  a  "body  of  Presbyters  properly  so  called,"  and  of  course  not  Pre- 
lates. (3.)  This  theory  like  the  last  overturns  both  the  previous  schemes, 
h^  first  denying  to  Paul  the  sole  authority  ;  and  secondly,  by  placing 
the  two  Greek  prepositions  on  an  equality,  and  thus  destroying  the  po- 
sition that  the  "Presbytery"  were  "mere  concurring"  spectators, 
etc.    etc. 

But  Prelatists  are  determined  not  to  overthrown.  Driven  from  one  po- 
sition they  fly  to  another  with  the  hope  of  prolonging  a  lingering  exis- 
tence. Were  it  not  that  their  arguments  are  justly  chargeable  with  the 
guilt  of  uncompromising  self-destruction,  their  cause  might  not  unaptly 
be  likened  to  a  certain  animal  which  is  said  to  have  "nine  lives."  De- 
feated in  all  their  previous  positions  respecting  Timothy's  ordination — 
(1.)  that  Paul  alone  ordained  him  ;  (2.)  that  Paul  and  the  Presbytery, 
the  former  "giving  validity,"  the  latter  expressing  "assent ;"  (3.)  that 


THE    SCRIPTURAL   BASIS.  10 1 

the  Presbytery  means  the  College  of  the  Apostles  ;  (4.)  that  the  Presby- 
tery means  a  Council  of  Prelates  ; — -they  thien  face  square  about  knd  an^- 
nounce  to  the  world,  the 

V.  Theory  for  Timothy's  ordination,  viz :  that  Paul  alone  ordained 
him  (II.  Tim.  1:  6,)  to  the  office  of  a  Presbyter,  the  word  rendered  "  Pres- 
bytery" (I.  Tim.  4:  14,)  meaning  the  office  to  which  he  was  inducted; 
and  all  this  too,  while  with  one  voice  they  insist  that  Timothy  was  or- 
dained a  Diocesan  Bishop,  the  "  Bishop  of  Ephesus  !  " 

This  view  is  advocated  by  Bishop  Onderdonk.  He  says  the  term 
"  Presbytery  "  as  here  used,  means  "  the  office  to  which  Timothy  Was  or- 
dained, not  the  -persons  who  ordained  him;  so  that  the  passage  would 
read,  '  With  the  laying  on  of  hands  to  confer  the  Presbyt6rate, '  or  pres- 
bytership,  or  the  clerical  office.  "  * 

To  this  interpretation  we  oppose  the  following  considerations :  (1.) 
This  is  not  the  sense  in  which  the  Word  is  Used  in  the  New  Testament. 
In  every  other  case  it  has  the  sense  of  an  assembly  or  body  of  Elders, 
as  we  have  already  shown.  Analogy  is  then  against  it.  (2.)  The  most 
eminent  commentators  of  all  classes,  Prelatists  among  them,  concur  in 
declaring  that  it  means  an  assembly  of  men,  and  not  an  office.  Autho- 
rity  is  then  against  it.  (3.)  This  interpretation  involves  an  essential 
absurdity.  If  the  term  rendered  "  Presbytery  "  means  the  "  office  "  to 
which  Timothy  was  introduced,  it  should  be  translated  thus  :  "  With  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  office.  "  Any  person  acquainted  with  the 
original  must  acknowledge  that  tov  rtpeajSvrsplov  (of  the  Presbytery)  are 
governed  by  tvv  ^^stpov  (of  the  hands.)  This  is  evidently  the  grammati- 
cal construction.  If,  then,  the  "  Presbytery  "  means'  the  "  office,  "  we 
are  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  supposing  that  this  office,  unlike  those  of 
modern  times,  had  hands  !  We  think  it  quite  as  lUtely  had  horns  too. 
Bishop  Onderdonk's  rendering — "  with  the  laying  on  of  hands  to  confer 
the  Presbyterate,  " — -is  an  adding  to  Scripture,  against  Which  we  are 
warned,  and  for  which  we  are  threatened  with  terrible  "  plagues,  "  in  the 
closing  verses  of  the  sacred  volume !  There  is  nothing  in  the  construc- 
tion, context,  or  nature  of  the  subject,  which  authorises  it ;  but  grammar, 
sense,  consistency,  language,  and  r6verence  for  inspired  truth,  all  com- 
bine to  show  that  this  prelatical  rendering  should  be  indignantly  spurned. 

But  suppose  we  admit  the  rendering  of  Bishop  Onderdonk,  what  then  ? 
By  this  admission  Prelacy  loses  Timothy,  and  we  lose  nothing.  For  (1.) 
If  "  the  Presbytery  "  means  the  "  office,  "  Timothy  was  ordained  to  the 

•  Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture. 


102  PRELACY    EXAMINED* 

rank  of  a  'Presbyter  only.  This  is  what  we  maintain.  Our  cause  is 
then  safe  in  Timothy's  hands.  But  Prelacy  loses  him.  He  is  no  longer 
" Bishop  of  Ephesus."  He  is  now  a  plain  PjOs')yter.  But  (2.)  This 
scheme  liews  down  every  other  that  Prelatists  have  raised  for  Timothy's 
ordination,  and  renders  all  their  previous  labor  worse  than  useless.  It 
makes  Paul  the  sole  ordainer  of  Timothy ;  routs  the  august  "  College  of 
the  Apostles  ;  "  disperses  Chrysostom's  "  Council  of  Bishops  ;  "  spoils  a 
vast  amount  of  learned  criticism  about  the  "  concurring  "  Presbytery ; 
ordains  Timottiy  a  plain  Presbyter ;  leaves  vacant  the  "  ancient  Dio- 
cese of  Ephesus  ;  "  and  last  though  not  least,  renders  the  whole  hierar- 
chy pre-eminently  ridiculous,  and  pours  upon  their  chameleon -like  endea- 
vors to  get  Timothy  prelatically  ordained,  the  most  unutterable  contempt. 

We  have  thus  examined  the  several  prelatical  theories  for  Timothy's' 
ordination,  and  have  exposed  their  untenable,  conflicting,  contradictory, 
and  suicidal  character.  There  is  in  truth  no  consistent  and  satisfactory 
account  of  this  matter,  besides  the  one  we  maintain,  viz  :  that  he  icas 
ordained  a  Presbyter  by  a  body  of  Presbyters,  as  declared  in  I.  Tim, 
4:  14. 

We  have  now  shown  two  clear  and  explicit  cases  of  Presbyterial  ordi- 
nation fi'om  the  Scriptures  ;  and  fi'  'n  these  we  maintain  the  full  scriptu- 
ral right  of  Presbyters,  and  "  Presbyters  alone  "  to  ordain.  This  was 
the  grand  point  to  be  determined,  and  without  any  vaunting,  we  think  it 
has  been  determined  in  our  favor.  We  might  proceed  to  cite  other  in- 
stances at  length,*  and  show  that  they  sustain  our  position  with  the  same 
conclusiveness  ;  but  it  is  needless.  These  clear  cases  prove  the  point  as 
really  as  would  a  thousand,  and  establish  beyond  the  possibility  of  a 
reasonable  doubt,  that  those  ministers  now  in  the  Christian  Church,  of 
the  rank  of  Presbyters,  are  clothed  by  the  clearest  examples  in  the  in- 
spired volume,  with  ample  authority  to  ordain  others  to  the  ministerial 
office.  Now  if  Prelatists  and  Romanists  will  show  us  but  one  example 
from  the  New  Testament,  of  ordination  to  the  ministry  by  a  Bishop,  or 
Prelate,  or  if  they  will  show  that  in  all  the  instances  of  ordination  there- 
in recorded,  Apostles  were  the  sole  actors,  (as  they  allege,)  we  will  give 
up  the  whole  argument,  and  at  once  go  over  to  Rome. 

Section  6. — Timothy,  Barnabas,  James,  Andronicus,  Junia,  Silas, 
Titus,  (Sfc.,  not  Apostles. 

*  The  ordinationp  velened  to  in  Acts,  14  :  23,  also  those  in  I.  Tim.  5  :  22,  and  Titua 
1  :  5,  were  undoubtedly  Presbyterial.  As  Barnabas  and  Timothy  received  only  Presby- 
terial ordination,  they,  of  course,  could  confer  no  other-  The  stream  cannot  rise  higher 
than  the  fountain. 


THE    SCRIPTURAL   BASIS.  103 

Bishop  Otey  makes  the  strange  statement  that  Timothy,  and  some 
others  are  "  called  Apostles,  "  "  were  Apostles,  "  6ic.  He  says  :  "  We 
may  say,  however,  in  passing,  that  neither  Barnabas,  nor  Silas,  nor 
Junius,  *  nor  Andronicus,  nor  Timothy,  nor  Titus,  appear  to  have  exer- 
cised  any  extraordinary  powers,  or  to  have  been  extraordinary  officers, 
and  yet  /hey  are  called  Apostles^  and  some  of  them  we  know  exercised 
the  power  of  ordination  and  governed  the  Church.  "  f  Again  he  says  : 
"  Equally  clear  and  certain  is  it,  that  others,  as  Paul,  and  Barnabas,  and 
Silas,  and  Timothy,  and  Titus,  and  James,  were  called  Apostles — and 
that  they  exercised  the  powers  of  Apostles  in  governing  the  Church,  and 
in  ordaining  to  the  holy  ministry.  "  ij: 

We  have  pronounced  this  a  strange  statement,  and  a  part  of  the  strange^ 
ness  consists  in  the  fact,  that  in  the  vital  point  it  has  no  support  h-om 
Scripture.  Bishop  Otey  deems  it  important  to  impress  his  readers  with 
the  belief  that  there  were  many  others  who  were  Apostles  besides  the 
thirteen,  and  who  possessed  no  "  extraordinary  powers  "  as  the  thirteen 
did,  but  yet  who  "  exercised  the  power  of  ordination  and  governed  the 
Church,  "  and  consequently,  that  the  order  of  Apostles  as  ordainers  and 
governors  was  perpetuated.  This  is  the  grand  conclusion  he  would  es- 
tablish. Its  soundness  rests  of  course  upon  the  soundness  of  his  pre- 
mises — that  the  above  named  persons  "  were  Apostles,"  and  "  were  called 
Apostles,  "  &c.  But  what  proof  does  he  adduce  of  the  correctness  of 
the  premises  ?  Not  a  particle.  As  usual,  he  assumes  the  point,  and 
then  complacently  draws  his  conclusion. 

To  this  we  reply  :  (1.)  That  Paul  was  an  Apostle  in  the  highest  sense 
of  the  term,  having  been  miraculously  called  and  invested  with  that  office 
by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  needs  no  proof.  Bishop  Otey  might 
have  been  spared  the  necessity  of  parading  Paul's  name  among  the 
others  here  mentioned,  (probably  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  favorable 
impression  respecting  the  alleged  apostolic  character  of  the  others,  by 
placing  them  in  good  company,)  for  all  the  world  admit  that  Paul  was 

"There  IS  no  sufh  personage  montioncd  in  the  New  Testament,  as  Bishop  Otey  a 
friend  "  Juniad.  "  We  presume  he  inenns  Juitia,  who  is  mentioned  along  with  Andro- 
t>i<;ns  in  i!om.  16 ;  7.  But  who  is  Jiiuia?  It  we  are  to  credit  Bishop  Otey's  particular 
friend' ..;H  chosen  wiinesses,  Chrysostom  and  Theophyiact,  and  other  Fathers,  this 
same  Junia  was  no  ot/ter  than  t/ie  wife  nf  Andronicus!  Some  copies  of  the  ancient 
Scriijiuii  s  have  it  "  Julia,  "  and  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches  celebrate  their  festival 
as  hasbaiid  and  xoife,  on  the  17th  Vlay  !  And  is  Lady  Junia  then  classed  among  the 
Apostles?  And  who  are  her  successors?  We  can  no  longer  doubt  "  Pope  Joan's  " 
complete  title  to  the  chair  of  St.  Peter! 

tDiscourses,  p.  42.  %  Discourses,  p.  53. 


104  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

truly  an  Apostle.  But  we  deny,  (2.)  That  any  of  the  others  here  mctlf 
tioned  were  Apostles  in  any  other  sense  than  what  the  common  meaning 
of  the  word  (aftoato%oi)  denotes,  as  "  one  sent,  "  a  "  messenger,  "  &c. 
We  also  deny,  (3.)  That  Andronicus,  Junia,  Timothy,  Silas  (or  Silva- 
nus,)  and  Titus,  are  even  "  called  Apostles,  "  any  where  in  Scripture.  * 
We  might  here  leave  the  matter  with  these  simple  denials,  for  there  is 
no  scriptural  authority  for  the  assumptions  against  which  we  oppose  them. 
But  as,  in  Bishop  Otey's  estimation  at  least,  the  case  is  sonaewhat  impor- 
tant, we  will  dwell  upon  it  a  moment. 

Of  the  above  list,  only  Paul,  Barnabas  and  James,  are  even  "  called 
Apostles,  "  in  the  Scriptures.  The  mere  application  of  the  term  Apcstle 
to  the  two  latter,  proves  nothing  respecting  their  ministerial  character. 
This  is  evident.  First,  From  the  primary  meaning  of  the  word,  and 
Secondly,  From  its  application  in  many  other  cases.  The  meaning  of 
the  word  Apostle  {arcoatoxo^)  is  sent.  As  applied  to  a  person,  it  means 
one  who  is  sent,  or  a  messenger.  That  this  is  its  full  force  may  be  seen 
by  its  application.  This  word  occurs  in  the  original  language  of  the 
New  Testament  eighty-one  times.  It  is  applied,  (1.)  To  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  as  "  sent "  from  God,  denoting  that  he  is  the  great  Apostle  to  the 
world.f  (2.)  To  the  original  number  whom  the  Saviour  chose  to  be  his 
Apostles  to  the  world.ij:  (3.)  To  Paul,  deemed  an  Apostle  in  the  sense 
of  the  twelve,  and  especially  endowed  for  this  purpose  by  a  miraculous 
view  of  the  Saviour  after  his  ascension.  §  (4.)  To  certain  "  brethren  " 
who  met  with  Titus  at  Corinth,  and  who  are  called  in  our  version  "  the 
messengers  (artotj* oxot  the  Apostles)  of  the  Churches. "  We  do  not 
know  who,  or  how  many,  these  persons  were.  They  are  called  Apos- 
tles however  simply  because  they  were  "  sent "  from  one  Church  to  an- 
other. II  (5.)  To  Epaphroditus,  "  sent "  by  the  Church  at  Philippi  to 
Rome,  to  supply  the  necessities  of  Paul  who  was  there  imprisoned.  IT 

*  As  to  Andronicus,  Junia,  Timotny,  Silas,  and  Titus,  we  shall  dismiss  their  case 
with  the  simple  and  positive  denir^I.  that  they  are  any  where  "  called,  "  that  is,  named 
Apostles  in  the  New  Testament,  though  Bishop  Otey  affirms  it.  When  asked  where  t 
echo  answers,  where?  We  challenge  Bishop  Otey  to  make  good  his  assertion.  We 
know  there  are  some  passages,  upon  a  wrong  construction  of  which  the  case  is  attempt- 
ed to  be  made  out  But  we  shall  not  stop  to  point  out  their  true  meaning  now.  When 
it  is  alleged  directly  that  a  man  is  "  called  "  by  a  certain  name,  we  must  have  something 
more  than  forced  construction. 

+  Heb.  3  :  1. 

IMatt.  10:  2;  Mark,  6:  30;  Luke,  6:  13;  do.  9 :  10;  do.  11:  49;  do.  17:  5;  do 
22 :  14 ;  do.  24  :  10  ;  Acts,  1 :  2,  26 ;  do.  2 :  37,  42,  43  ;  do.  4 :  33,  35,  36,  37 ;  besides 
many  other  places. 

$  Acts,  14 :  14  ;  Rom.  1  :  1  ;  do.  11  :  13 ;  I.  Cor.  1 :  1 ;  do-  9 :  1,  3 ;  do.  15 :  9  ;  II.  Cor. 
1 :  1 ;  and  many  other  places.  H II.  Cor.  8  :  23.  IT  Phil.  2  :  25. 


THE    SCRIPTURAL    BASIS.  105 

(6.)  To  any  person  who  is  "  sent "  to  perform  any  service  whatever. 
"  The  servant  is  not  greater  than  his  Lord ;  neither  he  that  is  '  sent ' 
(ortocfto^oj,  the  Apostle)  greater  than  he  that  sent  him.  "  *  (7.)  To  Bar- 
nabas in  one  instance  only,  f  (8.)  To  James  in  one  instance  only.:}: 
(9.)  To  Andronicus,  Junia,  Timothy,  Silvanus  or  Silas,  and  Titus,  (each 
and  all  of  whom  Bishop  Otey  says  were  "  called  Apostles,  ")  this  term  is 
never  once  applied,  in  the  whole  New  Testament. 

From  these  examples  of  the  use  of  the  term  Apostle,  it  is  evident  that 
the  mere  application  of  the  name  to  Barnabas  and  James,  proves  nothing 
in  favor  of  their  Apostolic  character.  For  if  it  does,  the  same  applica- 
tion proves  the  same  thing  respecting  all  to  whom  it  is  applied.  This 
will  ,not  be  pretended.  We  must  therefore  in  order  to  determine  wheth- 
er they  were  really  Apostles  in  the  specific  sense,  inquire  whether  there 
is  any  thing  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case  which  requires  that  we 
should  construe  the  term  as  applied  to  them,  in  the  restricted  sense. 

As  to  James,  he  is  once  "  called  "  an  Apostle  :  "  But  other  of  the 
Apostles  saw  I  none,  save  James  the  .Lord's  brother. "  Upon  this  we 
remark,  (1.)  That  there  were  two  Apostles  among  the  original  twelve  of 
the  name  of  James :  "  James  the  son  of  Zebedee, "  and  "  James  the 
son  of  Alpheus.  "  §  (2.)  It  is  therefore  by  no  means  certain  that  the 
James  spoken  of  in  Gal.  1:  19,  was  not  one  of  the  original  twelve.  He 
is  called  indeed  "the  Lord's  brother;"  but  this  is  not  sufficient  to  prove 
that  he  was  not  one  of  the  twelve;  for  Jirst,  the  word  "brother"  was 
used  by  the  Hebrews  to  denote  a  relative  more  remote  than  that  which 
it  denotes  among  us  ;  and  secondly,  it  is  an  opinion  among  able  commen- 
tators and  Biblical  critics  that  "  Alpheus  "  was  a  connection  of  the  fam- 
ily ot  our  Lord.  If  so,  the  James  of  Gal.  1:19,  may  have  been  our  "Lord's 
brother,  "  and  still  one  of  the  twelve,  and  of  course  an  Apostle  in  the 
specific  sense  of  the  term.  (3.)  There  is  therefore  no  proof  that  this 
James  (if  not  one  of  the  twelve)  was  an  Apostle  in  the  sense  Bishop 
Otey  intends ;  for  as  we  have  seen  the  mere  application  of  the  name  to 
him  decides  nothing,  as  it  is  admitted  to  be  applied  to  many  who  were 
not  Apostles  in  the  peculiar  sense ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  circum' 
stances  which  requires  that  designation.  No  certainty  then  belongs  to  the 
case,  and  the  probability  seems  to  be  in  favor  of  his  being  one  of  the 
twelve. 

As  to  Barnabas,  he  is  once  "  called  "  an  Apostle  :  "  Which  when  the 
Apostles  Barnabas  and  Paul  heard  of,  they  rent  their  clothes.  "  ||     The 

•John,  13:  16.  t  Acts,  14  :  14.  t  Gai.  1 :  19. 

^  Mark,  3  :  17,  18 ;  Matt.  10 :  2,3;  Luke,  6  :  14,  15.  ||  Acts  14  :  14. 


106  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

question  is,  does  this  necessarily  mean  that  Barnabas  was  an  Apostle  in 
the  same  sense  that  Paul  was?  We  reply:  (1.)  There  is  no  account 
that  Barnabas  was  ever  elected,  ordained,  or  appointed,  in  any  manner, 
or  by  any  authority,  to  the  Apostolic  office,  while  there  is  a  particular 
statement  of  his  being  an  unsuccessful  candidate.  *  There  is.  however, 
a  particular  account  of  the  election  of  Matthias,  and  of  the  manner  in 
which  Paul  was  called,  selected,  and  set  apart  to  be  an  Apostle,  and  also 
of  the  calling  and  sending  forth  the  original  twelve.  (2.)  Barnabas  is 
frequently  mentioned  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  and  often  in  com- 
pany with  Paul,  but  in  no  other  case  as  an  Apostle ;  f  while  this  term  is 
very  often  applied  to  Paul.  (3.)  The  reason  why  this  term  is  applied  to 
Barnabas  in  the  one  solitary  instance  is  plain.  It  was  not  because  he 
was  an  Apostle  in  the  restricted  sense  of  the  thirteen,  but  in  the  sense  of 
having  been  ^^ sent  forth"  (Acts,  13:  4,)  to  the  great  work  of  proclaim- 
ing the  Gospel  and  planting  Churches  among  the  Gentiles  ;  in  the  same 
sense  in  which  Epaphroditus  was  the  "  Apostle  "  of  the  Church  at  Philippi, 
and  the  "  brethren  "  whom  Paul  "  sent  "  with  Titus  were  the  "  Apostles  '* 
of  the  Churches, — that  is,  they  were  the  messengers  of  the  Churches.  (4.) 
This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  name  Apostle  is  never  given 
to  Barnabas  subsequent  to  his  entering  upon  the  great  work  to  which  he' 
was  here  "  sent,  "  though  he  is  frequently  spoken  of  afterwards,  and  as 
the  travelling  companion  and  fellow-laborer  of  Paul ;  while  on  the  other 
hand,  Paul  is  commonly  named  an  Apostle  afterwards  ;  and  the  reason  isj 
not  that  he  is  here  or  elsewhere  "  called  "  an  Apostle  merely,  but  because 
of  other  and  marked  proofs  of  his  Apostleship,  which  cannot  be  applied 
to  Barnabas. 

From  the  foregoing  considerations,  therefore,  we  feel  warranted  in  de- 
daring,  that  although  James  and  Barnabas  are  "  called "  or  named 
"  Apostles,  "  they  evidently  were  not  Apostles  in  the  sense  intended  by 
Bishop  Otey.  Now  as  he  admits  that  the  persons  in  the  above  list, 
viz : — Paul,  Barnabas,  Timothy,  Titus,  Silas,  and  James,  at  least, 
— "exercised  the  power  of  ordinalion,  and  governed  the  Church;"  and 
as  it  is  plain  that  they  were  not  Apostles  in  the  sense  intended,  (ex- 
cept Paul,  unless  James  be  deemed  one  of  the  twelve,) — they  must  have 
exercised  these  flinctions  in  virtue  of  their  ordinary  ministerial  character 
as  Presbyters.  We  have,  therefore,  all  these  additional  examples  from 
the  Scriptures  in  favor  of  Presbyterial  ordination.  X 

*   AclS,    1  :  23 

t  Acts,  11 :  22,  26,  30  ;  12  :  2f> ;  13  :  1,  2,  50  ;  14  :  12  ;  16  :  2,  12,  37  ;  I.  Cor.  9:6;  Gal. 
2:1,9,  13;  Col.  4  :  10. 
t  It  is  maintained  by  those  who  deny  the  Apostolic  character  of  Barnabas,  Androni- 


THE  SCRIPTURAL  BASIS.  107 

Section  7. — The  true  character  of  the  Apostolic  Office. 

In  the  commencement  of  the  present  chapter,  (page  50,)  in  laying 
down  in  a  series  of  propositions,  the  distinctive  points  of  the  Prelatical 
and  Presbyterial  polity,  we  stated  in  the  first  proposition  on  the  Presby- 
terial  side,  "  that  the  Apostles  were  a  class  of  men  possessing  peculiar 
and  extraordinary  powers,  which  were  not  designed  to  be  perpetuated, 
and  in  the  exercise  of  their  ordinary  functions  are  to  be  regarded  as 
Presb^yters  only."  This  i)art  of  the  proposition  has  not  yet  been  dis- 
cussed. We  shall  dispatch  it  in  a  brief  space,  and  show  the  real  nature 
and  designs  of  the  Apostolic  office. 

Preiatists  insist  that  one  peculiarity  of  the  Apostolic  office,  and  which 
belonged  to  them  solely  in  their  day,  was  the  functions  of  ordination  and 
government.  We  deny  this,  and  have  disproved  it.  They  then  ask,  in 
what  did  the  Apostolic  office  consist?  We  shall  reply,  and  show  that 
AIL  that  was  peculiar  to  their  office  was  designed  to  he,  and  truly  was, 
temporary,  and  has  never  in  any  one  particular,  been  transmitted  to  any 
Prelate,  Pope,  or  Presli^ter,  so  that  there  never  have  been  and  are  not, 
any  successors  of  the  Apostles,  as  such ;  while  yet  it  is  true,  that  in  their 
ordinary  character,  which  was  designed  to  be  the  type  of  all  future  min- 
isters, they  were  and  are  styled  Presbyters,  and  as  such,  may  and  do  have 
successors  in  the  same  rank,  in  all  true  and  faithful  ministers  of  the 
Gospel  of  whatever  name. 

I.  The  peculiarity  of  the  Apostolic  office  consisted  in  the  following 
particulars : 

1.  That  they  should  have  seen  the  Lord,  and  been  eye  and  ear  wit- 
nesses of  what  they  testified  to  the  world.  *  This  is  laid  down  as  an 
essential  requisite,  in  the  choice  of  one  that  was  to  fill  the  place  of  Ju- 
das, "j"  All  of  them  could  say,  "  that  which  we  have  seen  and  heard, 
declare  we  unto  you.  "  %  The  case  of  Paul  is  no  exception  to  this  ;  for, 
referring  to  those  who  saw  Christ  after  his  resurrection,  he  says,  "  And 

CU8  &  Co.,  ihat  some  of  these  Ajio.-^Ues  ■•  lal^ely  sj  culied,"  pi)s-«'ssed  i  jui  sdicn.iii  and 
powers  in  sorre  respects  extraordinary,  although  Bishop  (Key  saytj,  that  ili<7  do  "not 
appear  to  have  exercised  any  extraordinary  povvero."  Timothy  and  I'ltus,  lor  exa:nple, 
were  invested  with  a  power  of  jurisdiciion  adapted  to  the  necessities  of  the  infant  v  ncirch 
in  places  and  at  times  where  the  Apostles  could  not  give  their  personal  itiention.  But 
this  gives  no  countenance  to  the  idea  that  they  were  of  any  higher  rank  than  Pres- 
byters. In  ihe  exercise  of  these  tunciions, '1  imoihy  is  termed  an  '  Ev:  njielisi"  (II.  Tim. 
4:  5.)  Ail  that  Timothy,  T'tus,  and  thu  other  Evangelis's  did,  t;iciing  under  the  ex- 
press direction  of  the  Apostles,)  may  perfectly  consist  with  their  ordinary  rank  as  Pres- 
byters, while  yet  the  functions  they  exercised  may  have  partaken  of  an  extraordinary 
temporary  character,  demanded  by  the  primitive  state  of  the  Church  ;  just  as  iheApos- 
tolic  office  was  for  the  same  reasons  extraordmary  and  temporary. 

•  John,  15 :  27.  t  Acts,  1 :  21,  22.  %  I-  John,  1 :  3. 


108 


PRELACY    EXAMINED. 


last  of  all  he  was  seen  of  me.  "  *  And  he  mentions  this  upon  another  oc- 
casion, as  one  of  his  Apostolic  qualifications  :  "  Am  I  not  ah  Apostle  ? 
Have  I  not  seen  the  Lord.  "  f  So  that  his  "  seeing  that  Just  One,  and 
hearing  the  voice  of  his  mouth,  "  was  necessary  to  his  being  a  "  witness  " 
of  what  he  thus  saw  and  heard.  :f: 

2.  They  must'  have  been  immediately  called  and  chosfen  to  that  office 
by  Christ  himself.  This  was  the  case  with  every  one  of  them,  §  Paul 
and  Matthias  not  excepted.  Paul  speaks  directly  of  his  call  by  our  Sa- 
viour ;  II  and  the  Lord,  by  determining  the  lot  in  the  case  of  Matthias, 
declared  his  choice.  IT 

3.  Infallible  inspiration  was  also  necessary  to  qualify  persons  for  that 
office.  **  They  had  not  only  to  Explain  the  true  sense  and  spirit  of  the 
Old  Testament,  but  also  to  give  forth  the  New  Testament  Revelation  to 
the  world,  which  was  to  bfe  the  unalterable  standard  of  faith  and  practice 
in  all  succeeding  generations,  f  j"  It  vi'as  therefore  necessSry  that  they 
should  be  secured  against  all  mistakes,  by  the  dictates  of  the  Spirit  of 
truth.  Accordingly  Christ  promised  and  actually  bestowed  upon  them, 
the  Holy  Spirit,  "  to  teach  them  all  things,"  to  "guide  them  into  all  truth,  " 
&;c.  :j::j:  Their  doctrine  must  also  be  received,  not  as  the  word  of  man, 
but  as  the  Word  of  God ;  §§  and  as  that  by  which  we  are  to  distinguish 
the  spirit  of  truth  from  the  spirit  of  error.  ||{| 

4.  The  power  of  working  miracles  was  an  important  Apostolic  quali- 
fication— such  as  speaking  different  languages,  curing  the  lame,  healing 
the  sick,  raising  the  dead,  discerning  of  spirits,  and  conferring  thesis 
gifls  upon  others.  HIT  These  were  credentials  of  their  Apostolic  mis- 
sion, ***  by  means  of  which  they  confirmed  their  doctrine  at  its  first  pub- 
lication, gaining  credit  to  it  as  a  Revelation  from  God,  who  thereby  bore 
witness  to  them,  f ff 

5.  To  the  Apostles  belonged  the  high  prerogative  of  conferring  upon 
others  spiritual  gifls  and  miraculous  powers.  :|::|::j: 

6.  The  universality  of  their  mission  was  another  Apostolic  qualification. 
Their  charge  was  not,  like  that  of  ordinary  Pastors,  restricted  to  any 
particular  Church,  but  being  the  oracles  of  God  to  men  they  had  "  the 
care  of  all  the  Churches.  "  §§§  They  had  authority  to  settle  their  faith 
and  order,  as  examples  lo  all  succeeding  Churches,  to  determine  all  con- 

•  1.  Cor.  15  :  8.  +  I.  Cor.  9:1.  J  Acta,  22  :  14,  15. 

§  Luke,  6:13.  ||  Gal.  1:1.  TActs,  1 :  24— 26. 

•*  John,  16 :  13.         +t  Luke,  24 :  27  ;  Aets,  26 :  22,  23  ;  do.  28  :  23  ;  L  Pet.  1 :  25, 
it  John,  16  :  13,  26.  ^  I.  Thess.  2  :  13.  ||||  I.  John,  4  :  6. 

ITT  Mark,  16  :  20  ;  Acts,  2 :  43  ;  I  Cor.  12 :  8—11.  •••  IL  Cor.  12  :  12. 

ttt  Heb,  2 :  4.  tX%  Acts,  8 :  passim.  m  H.  Cor.  11:  28. 


THE    SCRIPTURAL    BASIS.  109 

troversies  *  and  to"  exercise  the  rod  of  discipline  upon  all  offenders, 
whether  Pastors  or  flock,  t 

7.  Besides  the  above  six  marks  of  Apostolic  qualifications,  it  may  be 
added,  that  to  the  Apostlesbeh)nged  the  peculiar  and  exclusive  prerogative 
of  writing  doclrinal  and  preceptive  books  of  aiilhority  in  the  ('hristian 
Church  ;  and  it  sufficie-itly  appears  that  no  \r  pislle  or  other  doctrinal 
wr  tings  ;  f  any  person  who  was  of  a  rank  -trelow  that  of  an  Apostle, 
were  received  hy  (Miiislians  as  a  part  of  their  rule  of  faith.  \Vitti  regard 
to  the  writings  ol  Mark  and  Luke,  they  are  counted  historical,  rather 
than  doctrinal  or  dugmaiical:  and  Auo-ustine  remarks  that  -ark  and  duke 
wrote  at  a  time  when  their  wri'ings  might  be  approved,  not  only  by  the 
Ciiurch,  but  by  Apostles  still  living. 

'J  he  above  are  the  scriptural  qualifications  of  Apostles.  Is  it  not 
palpable,  thai  not  one  of  these  qualifica  ions  has  been  transmitted  ?  Is 
it  not  pi  lin,  therefore,  that  they  were  all  designed  to  he  temporary  ? — 
were  adapted  to,  and  inten«le(i  for,  the  Church  in  its  infant  state?  Yet 
Prelatists  allege  that  Dioc  sin  Bishops  are  the  sicccess  )rs  of  the  Apos- 
tles I  In  what  have  they  succeeded  them  ?  In  ani/  one  thing  belonging 
to  them  as  Apostl  s?  Have  the  Prelates  of  the  present  day  "  seen  the 
Lord''''  with  their  bodily  eyes,  or  even  in  a  miraculous  manner  as  did 
Paul?  Have  they  been  calls  I  and  chosen  to  their  office  5y  the  Lord  in 
person,  or  even  as  Paul  and  Matthias  were  ?  Are  they  inspired  to  speak 
Divine  truth  'i  (van  they  worit  miracles  ?  Can  they  bestow  upon  others 
the  same  power?  Is  their  mission,  individually,  so  nearly  approaching 
to  universal,  that  th^y  have  upon  them  "  the  care  of  all  the  Churches?" 
Have  they  authority  to  add  to  the  sacred  canon  of  iievelation?  11  our 
modern  Prelates  posse-^s  nil  these  qualifications,  they  are  truly  the  suc- 
cessors of  the  Apostles.  If  they  p  >ssess  none  of  them,  they  hav(!  not 
succeeded  the  Apostles  in  any  thing  which  belonged  to  the  Ap  stolic 
office,  and  consequently  'axc  fals  ly  styled  the  "successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles."     Witn  us  the  judgment  of  eminent  Prelatists  comcides. 

Dr.  Dodwell:  "  The  office  of  the  Apostles  perished  with  the  .Apos- 
tles; in  which  office  there  never  was  any  succession  to  any  of  them, 
except  to  Judas  the  traitor"  Ur.  Barrow  :  "  i  he  Apostolical  office,  as 
such,  was  personal  and  temporary ;  and  therefore,  according  to  its  nature 
and  design,  not  successive  or  commuuicahle  to  others  in  perpetual  de- 
scendence  from  them.  It  was,  as  such,  in  all  respects  extraordinary^ 
conferred  in  a  special  manner,  designed  for  speci  1  purposes,  discharged 
by  special  aids,  endowed  with  special  privileges,  as  was  needful  lor  the 

•Acts,  16  :  4.  1 1.  Cor.  5  :  3— G  ;  II.  Cor.  10  :  8  ;  do.  13  :  10. 

P 


110  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

propagation  of  Christianity,   and  founding  of  Churches."*     Cardinal 

Heilarmiiie,  of  the  \l  aiiish  (^hurch  :  "  !Msii  ps  (Prelates)  h:ive  no  pact 
of  the  Apostolical  authority."  Archbishop  \^  hateley  uses  this  pointed 
language:  "  Succe.fsors  in  the  A  post  lie  office,  f/ie  Jdposlles  luive  none. 
ris  witnesses  of  ihe  resurrection,  as  dispensers  ol  miraculous  gifts,  as 
ins()ir<  d  oracles  of  Divine  l^evelation,  fhei^  havti  no  sitccesxors." 

According  to  these  competent  witnesses,  our  position  is  maintained — 
that  the  Apostolic  oHice  was  in  all  respicis  "extraordinary  and  tempora- 
ry"— that  in  no  one  nuT'icuf^tr  has  tliis  office  been  perpetuated — arid 
iheref  ire,  that  Trelates  are  fnhebj  styled  "  siicce^^sors  ■  {  the  Ap"stles." 

If  l*r(  1  ilistS'say  that  heir  IJishops  have  succeeded  the  Ap  sties  in  the 
duties  of  onlination  and  govenimenf,  we  reply,  so  have  Pres' yfers-} 
for  we  have  already  shown  from  Scripture,  and  [)relatical  concessions  in 
abundance,  that  others  beside  Apostles  offahi'''/  nd  gorerne'L  These, 
therefore,  were  not  functions  connected  with  the  Jipostolic  o  ce,  as  such; 
but  wer*'  powers  possessed  by  Aposil  s  as  on/tnr/r?/  ministrs,  in  com- 
mon with  all  other  ministers.     This  leads  us  to  remark — 

II.  That  the  oriifinal  thirteen  possessed  the  doulle  character  z\\(\  acted 
in  the  double  capacifi/  of  extraordinary  and  ordinary  ministers.  In  the 
former,  they  were  .Apostles — in  the  latter  Pr  shyters.  Of  their  double 
chiracter  and  double  capacity,  we  have  proof  from  J^cripture,  and  from 
the  admission  of  our  opp  nents. 

The  Scriptures  teach,  (I.)  That  they  were  ministers  or  preachera 
before  they  were  Aposles.  The  Apostles  as  such  were  not  appointed 
till  afier  the  resurrection  of  ('hrist,  though  the  twelve  had  been  employed 
as  ordinary  ministers  before  this.  As  regirds  Paul,  Lord  B.irringion  has 
shown  that  after  h  s  conversion,  he  lab  ired  in  the  ordinarv  chiracter  of  a 
prophet  or  teactu^r.  for  eight  or  nine  \  ears  before  he  was  cnll^:?!  to  i>e  an 
Ap  slle.  In  co'illrmation  of  this,  Arcliiiishop  Wakes  ivs:  "'Tliey  are  both 
mentioned  (Harnabas  and  Snd)  to  ha^e  tnught  m;ch  people  at  Anticjcli, 
and  are  numbered  amoiiff  the  prophets  and  !e;,cliersof  ifr  C  risiinn  Church 
there.  ******  «-  *  *  *  Here,  t'en,  we  find  t''cm,  both  b\  teach- 
ing and  administering  that  blessed  sacrament,  discharging  the  work  of  a 
Priest  or  P'esby'er,as  we  now  understand  that  word  But  they  still  wanted 
the  Jipo-iloUc  ch;iraciei."t  (2.)  They  themselves  distinguish  between 
their  extraordinary  character  as  inspired  Jlpostles,  and  their  ordinary 
character  as  fal'ihie  minis'ers  of  the  Gospel.  J^et  Paul  testify.  He 
says:  "  Paul,  a  servut,  of  Jesus  f'hrist,  "  cull  d  to  be  an  ^^postleJ'''  \     He 

*  LijiTuw  oil  iliti  r'oiJe's  -^upreinacy- 

,*  Apo3.  Fathers,  Piel   Disq.  to  tho  Epis— Barnabas.        t  ^om.  1  :  1. 


THE    SCRIPTURAL    BASIS.  Ill 

speaks  here  of  his  extraordinary  Apostolic  character,  as  derived  from 
Christ  by  an  immediate  "call."  He  adds  in  the  same  A'erse,  "separated 
unto  the  Gospel  of  God."  M'herein  he  refers,  (according  to  Dr.  Bloom- 
field,  Bishop  of  London,)  to  his  being  set  apart  to  the  work  of  the  Gos- 
pel by  the  Presbyters  of  Anlioch,  or  to  the  ministry  in  an  ordinary  ca- 
pacity. Again,  Paul  says  :  "  Whereunto  I  am  ordained  a  preacher  and 
an  Apostle^''* — plainly  distinguishing  his  ordinary  and  extraordinary 
character.  Again,  in  justification  of  his  character  as  compared  with 
"false  teachers,"  he  asks:  "Are  they  ministers  of  Christ?"  f  He  ad- 
mits that  they  were  reputed  ministers,  but  maintains  that  even  on  this  ad- 
mission, he  could  prove  his  superiority.  But  how?  Does  he  insist  that 
while  they  were  only  ministers,  he  was  an  Apostle?  Not  at  all ;  but 
rather,  that  even  in  his  ordinary  character  as  a  minister,  he  was  in  many 
respects  superior,  and  he  points  out  in  what  this  superiority  consist- 
ed. (3.)  As  Apostles,  they  were  never  ordained,  but  called  by  the  im- 
mediate command  of  Christ.ij:  while  as  an  ordinary  minister  of  the  word 
Paul  at  least  was  set  apart  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  ordinary 
ministers,  or  Prpsbvters.§  (4.)  They  apply  to  themselves  the  specific 
terms  used  in  Scr!r>ture  to  denote  boih  extraordinary  and  ordinary 
miaisters.  In  their  extraordinary  character,  tl'ey  style  themselves 
Apos:les;\\  in  allusion  to  their  ordinary  cha  .  ,;cr,  they  call  them- 
selves Presbyters,  IT — besides,  they  call  them^^ives  by  several  other 
terms  which  apply  to  ordinary  ministers.  (5.)  They  sometimes  distin- 
guish between  their  Apostleship,  and  the  ordinary  character  of  other 
ministers.  Paul  thus  distinguishes  himself  from  Timothy :  "  Paul  an 
Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  Timothy  our  hroiher.  "  **  Paul  is  thus  care- 
flil  to  speak  of  himself  as  an  Apostle,  and  of  Timothy  as  not  an  Apostle, 
at  least  twice.  Now  if  he  does  not  intend  here  plainly  to  mark  a  dis- 
tinction between  the  ordinary  character  of  Timothy  and  his  own  extra, 
ordinary  character — if  he  regarded  Timothy  as  an  Apostle,  as  Bishop 
Otey  alleges  he  was,  it  is  quite  remarkable  that  he  did  not  make  the 
same  honorable  mention  of  Timothy  as  of  himself. 

In  confirmation  of  the  foregoing  view,  eminent  Prelatists  maintain  this 
double  character  in  the  thirteen.  Bishop  Andrews  :  "  In  the  Apostles, 
we  find  three  capacities,  as  we  may  term  them ;  first  as  Christians  in 
general ;  second,  as  preachers,  priests,  or  ministers,  more  special ;  third, 

•1.  Tm.  2:  7.  til.  Jor.  11:  n. 

JGal    1:1.  5  Acts  i:^:  1—3. 

II  f^ee  ihe  Scriptures,  passim.  f  I.  Peter,  5  :  1 ;  II.  John,  1 ;  III.  John,  1 

♦*II.  Cor.  1:   1;  Col.  1:1. 


112  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

as  those  twelve  persons  [with  Paul  thirteen]  whom  in  strict  propriety  o{ 
speech,  we  term  the  A-posiles"  After  showing  that  the  ministerial  com- 
mission  was  not  given  to  them  personally,  he  proceeds  :  "  It  being,  then, 
neither  personal  nor  peculiar  to  them  as  Apostles,  nor  again  common  to 
.ill  as  Christians,  it  must  needs  be  committed  to  them  as  ministers,  priests 
or  preachers  ;  and  consequently  to  those  who  in  that  offic^  and  function  do 
succeel  them,  to  whom  this  commission  is  still  continued."*  Archbishop 
Whateley  :  "  Successors  in  the  Apostolic  office,  the  Apostles  have  none. 
As  witnesses  of  the  resurrection,  as  dispensers  of  miraculous  gifts,  as  in- 
spired oracles  of  Divine  Revelation — they  have  no  successors.  But  as 
members,  as  ministers,  as  governors  of  Christian  communities,  their  suc- 
cessors are  the  regularly  admitted  members,  the  lawfully  ordained  minis- 
ters, the  regular  and  recognized  governors,  of  a  regularly  subsisting 
Christian  Church."f  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor:  "In  the  extraoi'dinary  pri- 
vileges of  the  Apostles,  they  had  no  successors,  therefore  of  necessity  a 
succession  must  be  constituted  in  the  ordinary  office  of  the  Apostolate. 
Now  what  is  the  ordinary  office  ?  Most  certainly,  since  the  extraordina- 
ry was  only  a  help  for  i\ie  founding  and  beginning,  the  others  are  such  as 
are  necessary  for  the  perpetuating  of  a  Church.":}: 

We  have  thus  shown  from  Scripture,  and  from  the  admissions  of  our 
opponents  [1.]  That  the  Apostolic  office  was  in  all  respects  extraordina- 
ry and  temporary,  and  that  Prelates,  therefore,  are  not  and  cannot  be 
deemed  the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  for,  as  such  they  have  no  succes- 
sors. [2.]  The  same  testimonies  prove  that,  in  addition  to  this,  the  Apos- 
tles were  ordinary  ministers  or  Presbyters,  and  as  such  may  and  do  have 
successors.     Now  the  question  arises — 

III.  Who  are  the  successors  of  the  Apostles  in  their  ordinary  flmctions 
as  preachers  of  the  Gospel  and  administrators  of  the  Sacraments,  as  or- 
dainers  and  governors,  &c.  &:c?     We  answer,  Presbifters. 

We  have  already  proved  in  this  chapter,  [1.]  That  Presbyters  are  fully 
empowered  to  exercise  every  fiinction  belonging  to  the  ordinary  and  trans- 
missible character  of  the  Apostolic  or  original  ministry,  viz :  that  they 
are  empowered  to  preach,  administer  the  Sacraments,  ordain  and  rule  ; 
and  that  they  actually  did  exercise  all  these  powers  during  the  ministry 
of  the  Apostles.  [2.]  That  the  Apostles,  in  their  ordinary  character, 
and  as  upon  an  equality  with  them,  associated  with  Presb)"ters  in  the  dis- 
charge of  all  these  duties.  [3.]  That  the  Apostolic  character  not  being 
perpetuated,  no   order  for  perpetual  duration  was  contemplated  higher 

*  Bishop  Andrew's  Sermons. 

+  Kingdom  of  Christ,  Essay  2,  Sec-  43. 

J  Episcopacy  Asserted,  as  found  in  his  worke. 


THE    SCRIPTURAL    BASIS.  11^ 

than  that  of  Presbyters.  [4.]  That  as  the  ministerial  commission 
contemplated  a  permanent  ministry,  and  embraces  none  of  the  powers 
peculiar  to  the  Apostolic  Office,  it  of  course  confers  its  powers  upon  Pres- 
byters ;  and  as  no  division  of  powers  is  pointed  out  or  intended,  it  con- 
stitutes  but  the  one  order  of  Presbyters,  and  bestows  all  its  powers  upon 
them.  We  are  therefore  led  to  conclude,  (5.)  and  finally,  that  Presbyters 
are  the  true  successors  of  the  Apostles  in  the  only  respect  in  which  they 
can  have  successors,  viz  :  in  all  the  chai'acteristics  of  their  ministry, 
which  were  ordinary,  and  which  embrace  every  ministerial  function  which 
was  intended  to  be  perpetuated. 

If  these  deductions  be  legitimate,  (and  we  challenge  their  disproof 
by  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee,")  two  things  will  follow  :  (1.)  That  what- 
ever  imposing  names  the  ministers  of  Christ  may  assume,  prompted  by 
vanity,  or  from  any  other  improper  motive — whether  they  be  termed  Pre- 
late,  Archbishop,  or  Pope,  or  any  thing  else  not  sanctioned  by  Scripture 
— there  are,  in  truth,  no  higher  officers  in  the  Church  whom  Christ  recog- 
nized than  Presbyters  or  Bishops,  which,  we  have  seen,  are  the  same. 
(2.)  That,  consequently,  all  Diocesans,  and  the  countless  ranks  above  them 
in  prelatical  Churches,  are  after  all,  in  the  sight  of  God,  but  plain  Presby- 
ters, and  have  no  rightful  spiritual  authority  to  "  lord  it  over  God's  heritage," 
more  than  they;  and  that,  aith  vigh  their  assumption  and  exercise  of  a 
superior  power  do  not  authorize  us  to  pronounce  upon  them  our  unqualified 
anathemas,  and  to  hand  them  over  to  "  uncovenanted  mercies,"  or  to  cer- 
tain damnation,  yet  this  usurpation  of  authority  and  innovation  upon  Scrip- 
tural usage,  cannot  but  be  displeasing  to  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church, 
especially  as  they  have  a  remarkable  tendency,  from  present  develop- 
ments, to  inflate  its  possessors  with  a  pride,  and  to  lead  them  to  treat 
their  fellow^  Christians  with  a  contempt,  which  have  no  sanction  in  the 
meek  and  lowly  character  of  our  Lord. 

Archbishop  Whateley  makes  these  pointed  remarks,  which  we  hope 
will  be  received  with  good  humour  by  those  for  whom  they  are  intended  : 
"  It  is  curious  to  observe  how  very  common  it  is  for  any  sect  or  party  to 
assume  a  title  indicative  of  the  very  excellence  in  which  they  are  espe- 
cially deficient,  or  strongly  condemnatory  of  the  very  errors  with  which 
they  are  especially  chargeable.  Thus,  those  who  from  time  to  time  have 
designated  themselves  '  Gnostics, '  i.  e.  persons  '  knouing  '  the  Gospel  in 
a  far  superior  degree  to  other  professed  Christians,  have  been  generally 
remarkable  for  their  ivant  of  knowledge  of  the  very  first  rudiments  of 
evangelical  truth.  The  phrase 'Catholic'  religion,  i.  e.  'universal,'  is 
th©  moet  commonly  in  the  mouths  of  those  who  are  the  most  limited  and 


114  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

exclusive  in  their  views,  and  who  seek  to  shut  out  the  largest  tnimber  of 
Christian  communities  from  the  Gospel  covenant.  ^  Scfusm.^  again,  is 
by  none  more  loudly  reprobited  than  by  those  uho  are  not  onhj 'he  imme- 
diate authors  of  schism,  but  the  advora'es  of  prinHples  fending  to  generate 
and  perpetuate  schisms  without  end.  "  *  This  is  a  just  rebuke,  and  comes 
from  a  high  source.      Verbum  sal,  &c. 

Section  8. —  Tlie  rank  and  character  of  Deacons. 

In  the  first  of  our  series  f)^  propositions  (page  50)  against  Prelacy, 
we  stated  that  "  Df^acons  were  not  an  order  of  clergy,  but  were  appoint, 
ed  to  attend  to  the  temporal  concerns  of  the  Church.  "  The  Prelatical 
view  of  the  character  of  Deacons  is  thus  presented  by  Bishop  Otey : 
"  That  the  Apostles  ordained  Deacons  is  admitt'-d — ^hat  thef:c  Deacons 
bo'h  preached  ani  baptized.,  and  so  far  were  ministers,  stands  as  plainly 
recorded  in  the  Ads  of  !he  Apostles  as  any  thing  else  to  be  read  therein."'^ 
It  must,  indeed,  then,  be  very,  very  plain  !  Strange  that  any  persons 
who  can  simply  "  read  "  the  "  Acts  of  the  Apostles  "  should  have  failed 
to  discover  what  is  so  '•  plainly  recorded  therein  !  "  As  this  statement 
stands,  it  is.  in  our  humble  judgment,  "plainly"  at  variance  with  the 
facts.  We  think,  however,  by  supplying  a  word  or  two,  w«  can  ma>p  it 
tell  something  nearer  the  truth  : — *■  That  these  Deacons  both  preached 
and  baptized,  stands  as  plainly  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  as 
any  tiling  else  to  be  read  therein,"  provided  you  '^read"  through  a  pair 
of  strongly -magnifying  prelatical  spectacles!  We  say  "  5/ro/?^7:y-magnify- 
ing.  "  f  tr  even  all  Prelatists  have  not  b'^en  able  to  "  read  "  what  is  so 
so  "  plainly  recorded.  "  Now  as  we  are  not  so  fortunate  as  to  have  the 
requisite  'helps  to  read.  "  we  must  be  excused  if  we  cannot  discover 
such  things  "plainly  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  " 

Our  posiiion  is.  that  the  office  of  a  Deacon  was  of  a  secular  charac- 
ter— was  to  take  care  of  the  poor,  to  administer  to  them  the  alms  of  the 
Church,  and  to  superintend  gene-^aily  its  temporal  affairs  ;  and  we  deny 
that  there  is  any  evidence  in  Scripture,  "  that  these  Deacons,  "  as  such, 
"  both  preached  and  baptized,  and  so  far  were  ministers.  " 

That  their  office  was  for  the  purposes  here  stated,  is  "  plainly  recorded 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,"  as  follows  :  "And  in  those  days,  when  the 
number  of  the  disciples  was  multiplied,  there  arose  a  murmuring  of  the 
Grecians  against  the  Hebrews,  because  their  widows  were  neglected  in 
the  daily  ministration.  Then  the  twelve  called  the  multitude  of  the  dis- 
ciples unto  them,  and  said,  It  is  not  reason  that  we  should  leave  the  Word 
of  God  and  serve  tables.     Therefore,   brethren,  look  ye  out  amorg  you 

♦Kingdom  of  Christ  Delineatedj  Eeeay  3,  see.  19,  note.  t  Discourses,  p.  57. 


THE    SCRIPTURAL    BASIS.  116 

eeven  men  of  honest  report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom,  whom 
we  may  appcjiut  over  this  business.  But  v;e  wiii  give  ourselves  cciitiim- 
aliy  to  prayer,  and  to  mlidslry  oj  ihe  Word.  "*  This  passage,  and  the 
foiiovviijg  verses,  is  gcacrajy  graiiiod  to  be  tLo  last  record  of  the  ap- 
pointment of  Deacons  in  liie  (Jarisu.in  Church.  No  language,  it  wi/ild 
seein,  could  more  plainly  deCiare  that  their  duties  were  to  be  alto^i,;,,,;  ■ 
disiinct  from  preaching,  &c.,  or  as  it  is  here  termed,  "  the  ministry  ot  ihe 
word.  "  They  were  to  "  serve  tables,  "  an  expression  denoting  the  care 
of  or  provision  made  for  the  daily  wants  of  the  famiiy.  The  immediate 
necessity  for  the  appointment  was  that  certain  "  widows  were  neglected 
in  the  daily  minis'.raiion,  "  or  distribution  of  alms  made  for  the  poor.  It 
is  evident  from  some  of  the  Episties;  (i.  Tim.  5:  3,  9,  10,  16;  and  James, 
1:  27,)  that  poor  widows  were  objects  of  special  attention  in  the  primitive 
Church,  and  that  the  early  Christians  felt  an  indispensable  obligation  to 
provide  tor  their  wants.  These  Deacons  were  "  appointed  over  ^Ai*  6m«. 
ness,  "  in  order  that  those  whose  duty  it  was  to  preach  "  the  word,  "  might 
not  be  drawn  aside  from  their  appropriate  work  to  these  more  secular 
concerns.  What  can  more  clearly  show  that  the  scriptural  Deacon  was 
not  a  minister  of  the  Gospel  1  What  can  more  plainly  declare  that  his 
was  a  secular  office  in  the  Church,  and  not  an  "  order  of  the  ministry?  " 

To  this  representation  of  the  office  and  duties  of  the  scriptural  Dea- 
cons, Prelatists  agree.-  "  The  office  of  Deacons, "  says  Dr.  Lightfbot  in 
his  works,  "  was  not  ministerial,  or  for  the  preaching  of  the  word,  but  for 
■providing  for  ihe  poor.  "  Says  Bishop  Burnet :  "  The  charge  of  the 
parnasin,  or  Deacons,  "  (alluding  to  the  Synagogue,  after  which  the 
Christian  Church  was  modeled)  was  to  gather  the  collections  of  the  rich, 
and  to  distribute  them  to  the  poor,  "f  Archbishop  Potter  in  his  work  on 
Church  Government :  "  Deacons  are  not  ordained  to  be  Pastors  of  the 
flock  of  Christ,  but  only  to  minister  to  the  Pastors.  "  "  Preaching  in  the 
public  congregufion,  which  does  inseparably  accosupany  the  care  of  sculs, 
cannot  properly  be  a  part  of  ihsir  office.  "  He  a" so  excludes  them  from 
the  righ'  to  baptize.  Archbishop  Whateley:  '•  Deo-.jons  appeae  to  have 
had  an  office  "  (in  Scripture  times)  "  considerably  dijj'erent  from  those  of 
our  Church.  "  4:  Bishop  While  :  "  But  can  it  be  imagined,  that  an  order 
instituted  for  the  purpose  of  serving  fabfrs,  shouM.  in  the  very  infancy 
of  its  existence,  have  the  office  of  the  ministry  committed  to  them  1  " 
"  At  the  first  institution  of  the  order,  there  could  have  been  no  difference 
between  them  and  layinen,  in  regard  to  the  preaching  of  the  tcord,  and  the 
administration  of  the  sacraments.  "  *     Bishop  Crofl  shall  conclude  this 

•Acs,  6:1— 4. 

t  Observations  on  the  2d  Canon.  tKingdora  of  Christ,  Eseay  2,  sec.  20. 


116  PRELACT    EXAMmEO. 

array  of  prelatical  testimony  :  "  Having  thus  stated  and  united  the  two 
preteiided  and  distinct  orders  of  Episcopacy  and  Presbytery,  I  now  pro- 
ceed to  the  third  prelended  spiritual  order,  that  of  Deaconship.  Whe- 
ther this  of  Deaconship  is  properly  to  be  called  an  order  or  an  office,  I 
will  not  dispute ;  but  certainly  no  spiritual  order,  for  their  office  was  to 
serve  tables,  as  the  Scripture  phrases  it,  which,  in  plain  English,  is  no- 
thing else  but  overseers  of  the  poor,  to  distribute  justly  and  discreetly  the 
alms  of  the  faithful;  which  the  Apostles  would  not  trouble  themselves 
withal,  lest  it  should  hinder  them  in  the  ministration  of  the  word  and 
prayer.  But  as  most  matters  of  this  world,  in  process  of  time,  deflect 
much  from  the  original  constitution,  so  it  fell  out  in  this  business  ;  for  the 
Bishops,  who  pretended  to  he  successors  to  the  Apostles,  by  little  and  little, 
took  to  themselves  the  dispensation  of  alms,  first  by  way  of  inspection 
over  the  Deacons,  but  at  length  the  total  management,  and  the  Deacons 
who  were  mere  lay-officers,  by  degrees  crept  into  the  Church  ministra- 
tion, and  became  a  reputed  spiritual  order,  and  a  necessary  degree  and 
step  to  the  priesthood,  of  which  I  can  find  nothing  in  Scripture  and  the 
original  institutions,  not  a  word  relating  to  any  thing  hut  the  ordering  of 
alms  for  the  poor.  And  the  first  I  find  of  their  officiating  in  spiritual 
matters,  is  in  Justin  Martyr,  who  lived  in  the  second  century,  "f 

The  above  testimony  fully  sustams  our  views  ol  the  office  of  the  Dea- 
con, viz :  that  Deacons  are  not  an  order  of  the  clergy  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  that  they  have  no  spiritual  jurisdiction,  but  are  simply  cura- 
tors of  the  poor,  and  appointed  to  attend  to  the  temporal  and  pecuniary 
concerns  of  the  Church ;  and  that,  consequently,  constituting  Deacons 
an  "  order  of  the  ministry,"  as  is  the  case  in  the  English  and  American 
Episcopal  Churches,  is  a  manifest  innovation  upon  Scripture  usage. 

Upon  what  grounds  then,  it  may  be  asiied,  does  Bishop  Otey  and  pre- 
latical Churches  generally,  deem  the  Deacon  one  of  the  "three  orders  of 
the  ministry?"  Oh !  here  is  the  transforming  specific  for  "  making 
Deacons,  "  as  the  Prayer  Book  has  it ! — "  These  Deacons  both  preached 
and  baptized,  "  says  Bishop  Otey,  "  and  so  far  were  viinsiters.  "  Well — 
suppose  we  admit  that  they  did  "  both  preach  and  baptise,  " — the  ques- 
tion would  then  arise,  Did  they  preach  and  baptize  in  virtue  of  their  office 
as  Deacons  1  This  is  the  point  to  settle.  Now  we  should  suppose,  rea- 
soning  a  priori,  as  the  office  of  Deacon  was  (or  secular  purposes^  (as  we 
have  shown  from  Scripture  and  from  Prelatists,)  that  if  "these  Deacons 
both  preached  and  baptised, "  they  did  this  not  in  virtue  of  their  office  of 
Deacon,  but  in  virtue  of  their  having  been  regularly  inducted  into  the 

*  Letter  to  Bishop  Ilobart. 

tCroFi's  Naked  Truth,  in  Scott's  Coil,  of"  Tracts. 


tHE    SCRIPTURAL   BASIS.  lit 

ministry  at  some  subsequent  time.  On  inquiry,  we  find  this  a  priori  view 
strongly  sustained  by  the  facts.  Two  of  the  seven  Deacons  ordained  in 
the  foregoing  account  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  were  Stephen  and 
Philip.  We  presume  Bishop  Otey  refers  to  them,  when  he  says  "  these 
Deacons  both  preached  and  baptized."  These  are  the  cases  generally 
cited. 

As  to  Stephen,  it  is  nowhere  said  that  he  either  preached,  or  baptized, 
or  was  a  minister.  It  is  said  that  "  there  arose  certain  of  the  synagogue," 
"  disputing  with  Stephen,"  and  that  "  they  suborned  men  who  said,  We 
have  heard  him  speak  blasphemous  words  against  Moses  and  against 
God,"  and  these  men  "  stirred  up  the  people,"  "  and  caught  him  and 
brought  him  to  the  council,  and  set  up  false  witnesses,"  &c.  *  When  in 
the  presence  of  this  "  council,"  before  whom  Stephen  was  arraigned  by 
mob  violence,  he  made  an  able  speech  in  defence,  endeavoring  to  dis- 
prove the  charge  of  blasphemy.  This  is  called  by  Prelatists,  Stephen's 
"preaching!"  But  we  ask,  what  layman  even  is  there  now  in  Christen- 
dom who  would  not  speak  in  his  own  defence  under  such  circumstances? 
And  would  this  make  him  a  minister  of  the  Gospel?  Neither  can  such 
"preaching,"  though  it  was  very  able  and  to  the  purpose  as  a  speech, 
make  Stephen  a  minister.  But  granting  that  Stephen  did  then  preach, 
this  speech  or  sermon  was  not  delivered  until  two  years  after  his  appoint- 
ment as  Deacon,  according  to  Townsend,  an  able  Church  of  England 
critic.f  If  he  then  "preached,"  there  was  ample  time  for  him  to  have 
been  ordained  to  the  ministry;  and  therefore,  there  is  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose this  preaching  was  in  virtue  of  an  office  instituted  purely  for  secular 
purposes.     Of  his  '■'■baptising"  there  is  no  evidence. 

As  to  Philip's  preaching  and  baptizing,  this  is  admitted ;  but  it  was 
not  in  virtue  of  his  secular  office  as  Deacon.  He  is  spoken  of  as  preach- 
ing the  Gospel  in  Samaria  ;  X  but  this,  according  to  Townsend,  was  some 
two  years  after  his  appointment  as  Deacon  ;  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  he 
had  been  ordained  to  the  ministry  since  that  time,  for  he  is  expressly 
called  "Philip  the  Evangelist,"^ — a  term  always  used  in  Scripture  to 
denote  a  minister  of  the  Gospel. 

So  much  for  Bishop  Otey's  Deacons.  It  "  stands  as  plainly  recorded 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  as  any  thing  else  to  be  read  therein,  "  that 
"  these  Deacons  "  did  not  "  both  "  preach  and  baptize — that  as  Deacons 
they  exercised  neither  of  these  functions,  "  and  so  far  were  "  not  "  minis- 

•  Acts,  6 :  9—13.    In  this  and  the  following  chapter,  see  the  lull  account  ot  Stephen's 
speech  in  defence. 
t  Townsend's  New  Testament.  %  Acts,  8:5.  %  Acts,  21: 8. 


118  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

ters  " — that  as  Deacons  their  duties  were  only  secular — and  that  all  of  the 
seven  who  did  preach  and  baptize,  did  so,  in  virtue  of  an  ordination  or 
endowment  entirely  distinct  from  that  of  the  office  of  Deacon.  The 
"  Bishop  of  Tennessee  "  will  pardon  us  for  so  flatly  contradicting  him — 
the  Scriptures  were  our  example  ! 

Section  9. — Recapitulation — and  Conclusion  of  the  Scripture  Argu- 
ment. 

We  have  now,  as  we  think,  fully  sustained  the  first  four  propositions 
of  our  system  in  opposition  to  the  scheme  of  Prelacy,  announced  at  the 
beginning  of  this  chapter,  (page  50)  as  follows : 

1.  That  the  ministry  of  the  Christian  Church,  as  to  all  its  charac- 
teristics which  were  ordinary  and  designed  to  be  perpetuated,  was  ori- 
ginally established  in  one  order,  in  which  all  were  officially  equal,  de- 
signated, indiscriminately.  Elders  or  Presbyters,  Bishops,  &c.,  &c.;  that 
the  Apostles  were  a  class  of  men  possessing  peculiar  and  extraordinary 
powers  which  were  not  designed  to  be  perpetuated,  and  in  the  exercise 
of  their  ordinary  functions  are  to  be  regarded  as  Presbyters  only;  and 
that  Deacons  were  not  an  order  of  clergy,  but  were  appointed  to  attend 
to  the  temporal  concerns  of  the  Church. 

2.  That  Bishops  and  Presbyters  are,  by  Divine  authority,  the  same  or- 
der, and  possess  the  same  character  and  functions. 

3.  That  during  the  ministry  of  the  Apostles,  Presbyters  possessed  and 
exercised,  both  in  conjunction  with  them  and  alone,  the  right  to  ordain 
to  the  ministry,  and  to  govern  the  Church ;  and  that  consequently  Pres- 
byters now  possess  and  may  exercise  this  authority. 

4.  That  Presbyters  are,  therefore,  as  really  the  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles as  Diocesan  Bishops ;  that  the  ordinations  performed  by  them  are 
equally  valid ;  and  consequently  that  the  ministry  of  all  the  Reformed 
Protestant  Churches  is  equally  valid  with  that  of  any  Diocesan  Episcopal 
Church. 

We  have  proved  each  and  all  these  propositions,  from  the  clearest  teS' 
timony  of  Scripture,  and  from  the  abundant  and  unequivocal  concessions 
of  the  most  distinguished  Prelatists  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic. 

Let  the  reader  bear  one  remark  in  mind :  it  is  worth  much  in  deter- 
mining the  several  questions  which  have  arisen  in  this  discussion:— 
There  is  not  a  material  point  upon  which  we  insist  in  the  whole 

CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN  PreLATISTS  AND  OURSELVES,  BUT  WHAT  HAS 
BEEN  CONCEDED,  OVER,  AND  OVER,  AND  OVER  AGAIN,  BY  THE  MOST  DIS- 
TINGUISHED    EPISCOPALIANS    WHO    HAVE    EVER    OPENED    THEIR    LIPS    OR 

WIELDED  A  PEN.  We  have  already  given  proof  of  this  to  a  large  extent, 
by  citing,  in  this  chapter,  their  testimonies  in  our  favor,  to  every  essen- 


THE    SCRIPTURAL   BASIS.  119 

tial  point  touching  the  scriptural  argument.  Before  closing  this  work, 
we  shall  exhibit  more  to  the  same  purpose,  showing  that  English  Epis- 
copalians in  particular,  in  former  and  better  days,  recognized  Churches 
on  the  continent  of  Europe  which  were  organized  without  Prelates,  and 
whose  ministers  had  none  other  than  Presbyterial  ordination,  as  true  and 
valid  Churches  of  Christ.  Indeed,  during  the  best  days  the  British 
Church  has  ever  seen,  many  of  her  "Bishops  and  other  clergy"  utterly 
repudiated  the  idea  that  Pi'elacy  was  founded  on  Divine  right,  in  any 
such  sense  as  necessarily  to  cut  off  all  other  Churches ;  and  that  to 
insist  upon  its  Divine  authority,  to  the  exclusion  from  the  pale  of 
Christ's  Church,  of  all  denominations  who  had  not  the  "three  orders,"  as 
is  the  fashion  now-a-days,  would  justly  entitle  such  persons  to  the  appella- 
tion of  "madmen."*  But  more  of  this  hereafter.  We  might  likewise  show, 
were  it  not  foreign  to  our  purpose,  that  there  is  scarcely  an  argument 
by  which  we  defend  ourselves  against  the  arrogant  assumptions  of  Prelacy 
at  this  day,  but  what  was  used  in  the  palmy  days  of  the  British  Reform- 
ation, to  defend  the  Episcopal  Church  against  the  claims  of  Papal  Rome ! 
"  But,"  in  the  language  of  Bishop  Otey,  "  what  would  it  all  avail  ?  Men 
of  this  age  have  become  wiser  than  the  Apostles,  the  Fathers  and  the 
Reformers — wiser  and  holier  than  those  who  sealed  their  testimony  to 
Christ's  truth,  and  their  fidelity  to  his  cause  with  their  blood."f 

We  have  now  brought  to  a  close  our  argument  from  the  Scriptures  in 
favor  of  our  system  of  Church  polity.  Our  object  has  been  to  show 
WHAT  God  has  said  concerning  the  order  of  his  own  house,  and  thus  to 
fulfil  an  Apostolic  injunction :  "  Be  ready  always  to  give  an  answer  to 
every  man  that  asketh  you  a  reason  of  the  hope  that  is  in  you,  with 
meekness  and  fear :  having  a  good  conscience  ;  that,  whereas  they  speak 
evil  of  you,  as  of  evil  doers,  they  may  be  ashamed  that  falsely  accuse 
your  good  conversation  in  Christ.";}: 

•  Archbisliup  >Valie.  a  diaunguished  advocate  of  Prelacy,  remarks:  "Nor  can  I,  by 
any  means,  join  with  certain  mad  writers  among  us,  in  denying  the  validity  of  their 
sacraments,  [of  Presbyterian  Churches]  and  in  callmg  in  question  their  right  to  the  name 
ol  Christian  Churches." — Letter  to  Le  Clerc.  Alas !  Prelatists  are  fast  running  "  mad  " 
in  these  days  •,  and  we  opine  that  it  will  be  as  difficult  to  cure  this  as  other  kinds  of 
hydrophobia.  When  it  has  advanced  to  the  stage  of  which  Dr.  Wake  epeaki,  the  faculty 
have  generally  considered  the  case  past  remedy  ! 

t  Discourses,  p.  63.  J  Peier,  3:  15. 


CHAPTER  rV. 

VIEWS  OF  THE  EARLY  CHRISTIAN  FATHERS. 

"  Who  are  the  Fathers  ?  They  are  merely  ancient  writers,  who  lived  in  the 
earlier  ages  of  the  Church^' — Dr.  Hook,  oI  I  he  Llmrch  of  Englatid 

"  We  do  not  despise  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  :  but  in  making  use  of  them,  we 
rtmember  that  they  ought  to  serve^  not  govern  us." — Calvin. 

"  My  antiquity  Is  Jesus  Christ." — Ignatius. 

"  When  God's  Word  is  by  the  Fathers  expounded,  construed,  and  glossed,  then,  in 
my  judgment,  it  is  even  like  to  one  that  straineth  milk  through  a  coal-sack,  which  must 
needs  spoil  and  make  the  milk  black.  Even  so,  likewise,  God's  Word  of  itself  is  suf- 
ficiently pure,  clean,  bright  and  clear  }  but  through  the  doctrines,  books,  and  writiriga 
of  the  Fathers,  it  is  very  sorely  darkened,  falsified  and  spoiled." — Luther. 

When  we  follow  the  advocates  of  Prelacy  to  the  ground  of  ecclesias- 
tical  history,  we  yield  them  a  courtesy  which  they  have  no  right  to 
expect.  The  instant  we  cross  the  line  of  inspiration,  we  are  out  of  the 
territory  where  the  only  rightful  tribunal  is  erected,  and  where  alone  we 
can  with  propriety  permit  the  present  cause  to  be  tried.  But  as  the  ar- 
gument which  Prelacy  derives  from  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  is  by 
many  of  her  friends  deemed  her  best  argument,  we  shall  be  pardoned 
if  we  pay  it  the  compliment  of  an  examination.  For  several  reasons, 
however,  we  shall  endeavor  to  dispatch  this  branch  of  the  subject  with 
as  much  brevity  as  circumstances  will  permit.     Among  the  reasons  are, 

1.  Their  testimony  is  needless.  The  only  thing  to  be  determined  in 
this  whole  controversy  is — what  hath  God  said  ?  This  can  be  known 
only  from  his  Word.  The  Scriptures  are  sufficiently  plain  in  all  mat- 
ters that  bind  our  faith  and  practice,  as  well  touching  the  polity  of  the 
Church,  as  any  other  things  revealed.  This  some  of  the  most  eminent 
Prelatists  allow.  The  Word  of  God,  therefore,  needs  no  help  from  the 
Fathers,  nor  from  any  other  quarter.  If  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  should 
be  found  to  coincide  with  the  views  of  Scripture,  as  understood  either  by 
Prelatists  or  others,  such  confirmation  would  be  entirely  unnecessary, 
because  what  God  has  said  needs  no  sanction  from  man.     If  they  should 


VIEWS    OP  THE    FATHERS.  121 

■fee  found  to  contradict  the  Scriptures,  their  testimony  would  be  worse 
than  useless ;  for,  "let  God  be  true,  but  every  man  a  liar."*  Besides 
this,  the  most  able  Prelatists  have  frequently  declared  what  the  common 
sense  of  all  men  approves,  that  the  Word  of  God  is  alone  authoritative 
in  this  as  in  every  other  religious  controversy  ;  and  more,  they  have  mani- 
fested  a  willingness  to  submit  all  to  this  test,  and  abide  the  issue.  Thus, 
Bishop  Ondei'donk  says:  "The  claim  ot  Episcopacy  to  be  of  Divine  in- 
stitution, and  therefore  obligatory  on  the  Church,  rests  fundamentally  on 
the  one  question — Has  it  the  authority  of  Scripture  ?  If  it  has  not,  it  is 
not  necessarily  binding.  This  one  point  should  be  kept  in  view  in  every 
discussion  of  the  subject.  No  argument  is  worth  taking  into  the  account 
that  has  not  a  palpable  bearing  on  the  clear  and  naked  topic — the  scrip- 
tural evidence  of  Episcopacy. 'f  This  is  what  every  true  Protestant 
ought  to  insist  upon.  We  must  take  the  Scriptures  just  as  they  are,  and 
the  authoritative  appeal  must  be  to  them  only.  The  testimony  of  the 
Fathers,  therefore,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  is  needless. 

2.  Their  testimony  is  inconsistent  and  contradictory,  and  consequently 
the  present  cause  cannot  he  settled  by  an  appeal  to  them.  What  we  mean 
is  this :  The  early  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church  cannot  safely  and 
unhesitatingly  be  relied  on  even  as  recorders  of  facts  which  might  be 
supposed  to  have  fallen  under  their  notice  ;  for  they  frequently  contradict 
themselves  and  each  other,  respecting  the  same  matters.  It  would  be  a 
laborious  task  to  cite  examples  of  this  conflicting  testimony  from  their 
writings.:}:  The  proof  however  can  be  furnished  in  a  way  equally  satis- 
factory to  our  opponents — by  quoting  the  statements  of  Episcopalians 
themselves,  that  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  is  thus  contradictory  and 
inconclusive.  A  few  examples  will  suffice.  The  celebrated  com- 
mentator. Dr.  Thomas  Scott,  says:  "The  ancient  Fathers  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  have  no  authority  over  our  creed,  any  more  than  we  have 
over  the  creed  of  our  remote  posterity.     So  little   agreement  in  sen- 

•  Rom.  3:4.  t  Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture. 

X  We  here  give  one  example  among  many,  which  directly  conflicts  with  \.he  fads  of 
Scripture  Irenaeus,  who  is  a  special  favorite  with  Prelatists,  and  who  is  cited  as  a  wit- 
ness for  Prelacy  by  Bishop  Otey,  makes  the  extraordinary  assertion  that  "  Christ  lived 
until  he  was  fifty  years  old;'''  and  he  further  states  that  "  the  Gospel  and  all  the  Elders 
who  came  to  Asia  with  John,  the  disciple  of  our  Lord,  informed  him  of  this." — Book  2, 
ch.  39.  40.  Truly,  this  Father  must  have  been  well  acquainted  with  "  the  Gospel !" 
As  a  specimen  of  the  regard  for  the  truth  of  Scripture,  entertained  by  some  of  the 
Fathers,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  Ignatius,  whose  writings  are  by  some  regarded  as  the 
"  grand  bulwark  of  Prelacy,"  expressly  mentions  it  in  one  of  his  Epistles,  as  "  a  heresy 
propagated  by  the  Devil,  that  Christ  is  God  over  all !"— and  yet  Paul  expressly  declares 
this  truth  in  thia  identical  language  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans !  Who  is  right,  Igna- 
iius  or  Paul  ? 


122  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

timent  is  found  among  the  Fathers,  that  it  would  be  a  very  easy  task  to 
bring  together  a  long  catalogue  of  their  mutual  discordances  ;  and  so  in- 
accurate were  they  as  to  historical  facts,  that  it  would  be  equally  easy  to 
make  a  long  list  of  their  undeniable  mistakes.  They  were  uninspired 
men,  and  fallible  as  others  are."*  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor:  "There  is 
no  question  this  day  in  contestation,  in  the  explication  of  which  all  the 
old  writers  did  consent. "f  Dr.  Sherlock:  "The  Scripture  is  all  of  a 
piece :  every  part  of  it  agrees  with  the  rest.  The  Fathers  many  times 
contradict  themselves,  and  each  other."  Says  Chillingworth :  "I  for  my 
part,  after  a  long,  and  (as  I  verily  hope  and  believe,)  impartial  search  of 
the  true  way  to  eternal  happiness  do  profess  plainly,  that  I  cannot  find 
any  rest  for  the  sole  of  my  feet,  but  upon  this  rock  only,  viz : — the  Scrip- 
ture. I  see  plainly,  and  with  my  own  eyes,  Councils  against  Councils, 
some  Fathers  against  others,  the  same  Fathers  against  themselves,  a 
consent  of  Fathers  of  one  age  against  a  consent  of  Fathers  of  another 
age,  and  the  Church  of  one  age  against  the  Church  of  another  age." 
Archbishop  Whateley :  "  When  referred  to  the  works  of  the  orthodox 
ancient  Fathers,  they  find  that  a  very  large  portion  of  these  works  is  lost, 
or  that  some  fragments  or  reports  of  them  by  other  writers  alone  remain : 
they  find  again  that  what  has  come  down  to  us  is  so  vast  in  amount  that 
a  life  is  not  sufficient  for  the  attentive  study  of  even  the  chief  part  of  it : 
they  find  these  authors  by  no  means  agreed,  on  all  points,  with  each 
other,  or  with  themselves ;  and  that  learned  men  are  not  agreed  in  the 
interpretation  of  them;  and  still  less  agreed  as  to  the  orthodoxy  of  each, 
and  the  weight  due  to  his  judgment  on  several  points ;  nor  even  agreed, 
by  some  centuries,  as  to  the  degree  of  antiquity  that  is  to  make  the  autho- 
rity of  each  decisive,  or  more  or  less  approaching  to  decisive.  Every 
THING,  in  short,  pertaining  to  this  appeal  (to  the  Fathers,)  is  obscure, 
uncertain,  disputable,  and  actually  disputed  to  such  a  degree,  that  even 
those  who  are  not  able  to  read  the  original  authors  may  yet  be  perfectly 
competent  to  perceive  how  unstable  a  foundation  they  furnish.  They 
can  perceive  that  the  mass  of  Christians  are  called  on  to  believe  and  to 
do  what  is  essential  to  Christianity,  in  implicit  reliance  on  the  reports  of 
their  respective  pastors,  as  to  what  certain  deep  theological  antiquarians 
have  reported  to  them,  respecting  the  reports  current  in  their  times,  con- 
cerning Apostolical  usages  and  institutions !  And  yet,  whoever  departs 
in  any  degree  fi-om  these,  is  to  be  regarded  \i.  e.  by  High-Churchmen 
against  whom  Dr.  Whateley  is  writing,]  at  best  in  an  intermediate  state 
between  Christianity  and  heathenism !  Surely,  the  tendency  of  this  pro- 
•  Keply  to  Bishop  Tomline.  t  Liberty  of  Prophesying. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    FATHERS.  123 

cedure  must  be  to  drive  the  doubting  into  conflrmed  (though  perhaps  se- 
cret) infidelity,  and  to  fill  with  doubts  the  most  sincerely  pious,  if  they  are 
anxiously  desirous  of  attaining  truth,  and  unhappiiy  have  sought  it  from 
such  instructors."*  Another. Church  of  England  writer  lately  put  forth 
this  challenge  to  the  High-Churchmen  of  the  present  day:  "1  challenge 
all  these  men  to  produce  from  the  modern  works  of  sectaries,  any  thing 
so  puerile,  fanciful,  foolish,  extravagant,  and  unscriptural,  as  1  shall  pro- 
duce from  the  writings  of  the  very  earliest  Fathers,  even  those  called 
Apostolical.  This  is  my  challenge,  and  let  them  ransack  all  the  works 
of  sectaries  of  our  day,  except  Socinians  and  Papists ;  I  could  almost 
afford  them  the  works  of  Joanna  Southcote  and  Jacob  Behmen.  1  will 
not  except  those  of  the  Ranters,  for  I  am  sure  I  can  match  them,  and 
e%'en  overmatch  them." 

The  above  statements  are  more  valuable  than  any  thing  we  could  fiir- 
nish  to  show  the  discordancy  and  uncertainty  which  prevails  among  the 
Fathers  even  as  to  the  same  historical  facts,  unless  we  should  cite  in- 
stances  from  their  own  writings  ;  but  this  is  altogether  needless,  as  these 
eminent  Prelatists  all  concur  in  declaring  that  they  are  very  bad  histori- 
ans. The  utmost  good  reason  had  Milton  for  exclaiming — "  Whatsoever 
time,  or  the  heedless  hand  of  blind  chance,  hath  drawn  down  from  of  old 
to  this  present,  in  her  huge  drag-net,  whether  fish,  or  sea-weed,  shells, 
or  shrubs,  unpicked,  unchosen,*  i7jo«e  are  the  Fathers  T^  And  yet,  these 
are  the  men  to  whom  modern  Prelatists,  with  a  confidence  and  a  gravity 
quite  astonishing,  refer  us,  to  learn  what  is  the  scriptural  constitution  of 
the  Christian  ministry ! 

3.  Episcopalians  have  generally  repudiated  the  Fathers  when  contend- 
ing with  Ro7ne  ;  they  cannot  now,  therefore,  consistently  demand  that  we 
should  drink  at  that  pool  from  which  they  have  so  frequently  turned  in 
disgust.  The  foregoing  quotations  show  how  some  Prelatists  regard  the 
Fathers.  Some  of  their  statements  were  written  when  vindicating  the 
Church  of  England  against  the  assumptions  of  the  Papacy.  We  here 
give  another  specimen  of  the  views  of  Church  of  England  divines  res- 
pecting the  value  of  the  Fathers,  in  controversies  with  the  Romish  Church. 
If  these  arguments  are  good  in  their  hands  against  Rome,  they  are  no 
less  so  in  ours  against  them ;  for  the  main  point  at  issue  is  the  same — 
the  credit  due  to  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers.  On  this  point  says  Bi- 
shop Taylor  :  "  No  church  at  this  day  admits  the  one-half  of  those  things 
which  certainly  by  the  Fathers  were  called  traditions  Apostolical.  ***** 
And  therefore,  it  is  not  honest  for  either  side  to  press  the  authority  of  the 

*  Kingdom  of  Christ,  Essay  2,  Sec  21. 


124  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

Fathers,  as  a  concluding  argument  in  matters  of  dispute,  unless  thenr* 
selves  will  be  content  to  submit  in  all  things  to  the  testimony  of  an  equal 
number  of  them,  which  I  am  certain  neither  side  will  do."*  Says  Dr* 
Sherlock  :  "  It  has  often  made  me  smile,  with  a  mixture  of  pity  and  in* 
dignation,  to  see  what  a  great  noise  the  Roman  disputants  made  among 
women  and  children,  and  the  meanest  sort  of  people,  with  quotations  out 
of  the  Fathers,  whom  they  pretended  to  be  all  on  their  side."  Says  An» 
derson,  after  quoting  the  above  from  Sherloek,  "  I  shall  be  glad  if  this  be 
not  the  character  of  some  other  folks,  as  well  as  the  Roman  disputants." 
The  foregoing  are  among  the  reasons  why  we  deem  it  proper  to  enter 
our  unqualified  dissent  to  the  reference  of  this  controversy  to  the  Fathers 
for  settlement.  It  is  absolutely  impossible,  from  the  nature  of  the  subject, 
and  from  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  for  them  to  settle  it.  Besides, 
they  have  been  repudiated,  time  and  again  by  our  opponents,  as  having 
NO  AUTHOKiTY  in  the  case.  Then  why  interrogate  them  we  may  be 
asked?  We  answer — Because  Frelatists  in  these  latter  days  insist  upon 
pressing  them  into  this  controversy.  Among  the  rest.  Bishop  Otey,  in 
his  discourses  here  reviewed,  makes  much  of  their  testimony,  and  evi- 
dently esteems  it  highly  serviceable  to  his  cause.  We  shall  examine  it 
and  test  its  worth.f 

*  Liljeriy  ot  Prophesying. 

t  We  give  a  sample  of  their  views,  showing  the  importance,  in  their  esteem,  of  the 
testimony  of  the  Fathers  Bishop  Otey  says-.  -'To  illustrate  the  value  of  these  wit- 
nesses, let  us  ask,  how  know  we  that  the  book  called  the  New  Testament,  was  written 
in  the  age  of  the  Apostles  and  by  the  disciples  of  Christ  ?  Thomas  Paine  asserts  that  it 
was  written  three  hundred  years  later.  How  do  we  meet  this  bold  and  unblushing  as- 
sertion ot  infidelity  ?  Simply  by  referring  to  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  of  the  first  three 
centuries.  They  make  mention  of  the  Gospels  of  the  New  Testament,  and  ot  other 
portions  of  the  same  work,  and  quote  passages  from  it.  Is  their  testimony  then  good 
and  sufficient  to  settle  the  simple  question  of  tact,  whether  the  New  Testament  was  in 
existence  in  their  respective  ages  or  not  ?  If  yea,  then  why  is  not  the  sanle  testimony 
equally  available  to  settle  the  question  of  fact,  as  to  what  was  the  order  of  the  Christian 
ministry  ?" — Discourses,  p.  58.  This  seems  plausible,  and  no  doubt,  to  the  discerning 
Bishop,  conclusive  But  we  have  shown  from  the  abundant  testimony  of  our  opponents 
that  the  Fathers  are  veri/  ?<M»a/e  /jJs(oria?j»  of 'simple  questions  of  fact."  Besides — 
Has  Bishop  (Hey  no  better  method  of  confronting  infidelity  than  by  "simply  referring 
to  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  of  the  first  three  centuries?"  To  this,  the  reputed 
shrewdness  of  Paine  would  probably  suggest  the  question — How  do  you  prove  that 
"  the  writings  of  the  first  three  centuries"  were  composed  at  the  time  alleged  ?  If  the 
"  Bishop  of  Tennesee"  should  reply  "by  simply  referring"  to  colemporary  or  suiisequent 
writings,  (a  parallel  case,)  the  question  then  would  be— How  d">  you  prove  that  they  were 
then  written  ?  We  see  not  where  this  dialogue  would  end.  If  Bit-hop  Otey  has  no  bet- 
ter arrows  than  thfs  in  his  quiver,  we  do  not  think  infidelity  would  have  much  to  fear 
from  his  assault.  Were  it  the  object  before  us.  we  should  like  to  run  out  this  pretended 
argument  to  its  results,  and  show  its  fallacy.    Notwithstanding  the  impregnable  fortress 


VIEWS    OP   THE   FATHERS.  125 

Waiving,  then,  our  especial  rights,  as  we  are  willing  to  do  for  the  argu- 
ment's sake — waiving  all  the  above  mentioned  well  founded  and  cogent 
objections  to  the  Fathers,  stated  by  Frelatis  s  ti"m  elves — we  condescend 
to  meet  our  opponents  in  the  school  of  ecclesiastical  antiquity,  and  to  sit 
with  them  for  a  few  moments  at  the  feet  of  these  ancient  Gamaliels. 
That  we  may  not  labor  in  vain  and  spend  our  strength  for  nought,  it  is 
well  to  understand  the  task  which  our  opponents  may  reasonably  be  ex- 
pected to  perform  in  this  their  chosen  field. 

Before  the  Fathers  can  be  claimed  as  the  advocates  of  an  exclusive 
Prelacy,  to  the  complete  discomfiture  of  the  pimciples  for  which  we  con- 
tend, Prelatists  must  prove  from  their  writings  the  following  propositions: 

1.  That  the  Fathers  regarded  Bishops,  on  the  ground  of  Divine  autho- 
rity, as  well  as  m  fact,  distinct  from,  and  superior  to,  those  Presbyters 
who  were  authorized  to  preach  and  administer  the  sacraments. 

2.  That  they  esteemed  these  Bishops  as  alone  Divinely  authorized  to 
perform,  and  as  in  fact  solely  exercising  in  their  day,  the  rite  of  ordina- 
tion to  the  ministry,  and  all  other  functions  now  claimed  as  the  peculiar 
prerogatives  of  Prelatists. 

3.  That  when  Bishops  were  advanced  to  their  superior  office,  they  uni- 
formly had  an  ordiaation,  or  consecration,  or  whatever  else  it  may  be 
called,  new  and  distinct  from  that  of  Presbyters. 

4.  That  each  Bishop  had  under  him  a  number  of  congregations,  with 
their  pastors,  whom  he  governed. 

5.  That  this  kind  of  Prelacy  was  deemed  by  all  the  early  Fathers  as 
an  institution  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  carried  out  by  the  Apostles  act- 
ing under  his  authority. 

To  demand  the  establishment  of  each  and  all  these  propositions  is  but 
fair.     Until  i'relatists  do  this,  they  cannot,  consistently,  lay  any  special 

in  delence  of  Christianity  which  Lardner  has  built  out  of  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers, 
the  argument  of  Bishop  Otey  is  valueless.  For  admitting  that  the  testimony  of  the 
Fathers  is  "good  and  sufficient  to  settle  the  simple  question  of  fact  whether  the  New 
Testament  was  in  existence  in  their  respective  ages  or  not,"  it  would  not  necessarily 
follow  that  their  testimony  would  be  '■'equally  available"  to  determine  "the  order  of  the 
Christian  ministry  "  The  former  is  a  "  simple  "  question— the  latter,  in  comparison,  a 
very  complex  one.  But  notice  one  other  writer  on  the  value  of  the  Fathers.  Bishop 
Onderdonk,  even  in  a  defence  of  a  work  which  he  has  entitled  "  Episcopacy  tested  by 
Scripture,'''  makes  this  extraordinary  assertion :  "  The  Fathers  are  consulted  on  the  sub- 
ject, because  the  fabric  of  tha  ministry  which  they  describe, /orwis  an  historical  basis  for 
iNTtRPRETiNG  ScRiPTURE  "  According  to  this  it  would  seem,  «hat  unless  we  first  become 
acquainted  with  this  "  historical  basis,"  our  interpretation  of  the  Bible  touching  the  polity 
of  the  Church,  is  destitute  of  any  true  support  and  authority  !  In  these  expressions  of 
high  regard  for  the  Fathers,  many  more  instances  might  be  added  from  the  writings  of 
eminent  prelatical  divines,  especially  from  the  Oxford  Tractarians  and  their  admirers 
in  this  country. 

R 


126  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

claim,  much  less  an  exclusive  one,  to  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers.  All 
these  points  are  embraced  in  the  system  of  modern  Prelacy,  and  are  es- 
sential to  it;  and  for  them  Scripture  and  the  Fathers  are  confidently 
pleaded.  If  any  one  of  them  should  fail  of  due  support  from  the  latter, 
their  testimony  will  be  lacking  to  an  important  if  not  vital  element  of 
Prelacy.  \i  all  of  them  should  be  found  wanting  when  weighed  in  the 
balances, of  primitive  antiquity,  the  confident  appeal  and  oft-reiterated  cry 
"to  the  Fathers,"  would  be  fatal  to  their  cause,  and  not  very  pleasant 
we  fear  to  themselves.  But  as  Prelatists  frequently  maintain,  with  an 
unhesitating  and  triumphant  air,  that  the  Fathers  are  unanimously  with 
them* — as  the  *'  Bishop  of  Tennessee"  boldly  asserts  "  of  the  writers  of 
the  first  three  centuries,"  that  "  these  witnesses  testify,  with  one  voice, 
that  the  ministry  of  the  Church  in  their  day  was  constituted  after  the 
model  of  the  Apostolic  ag"e,"t  (evidently  meaning  thereby,  that  the 
ministry  "  in  their  day"  consisted  in  three  orders,  the  superior  order  cor- 
responding to  modern  Prelates,) — as  this  is  so  confidently  and  frequently 
asserted,  we  say,  of  course  we  might  reasonably  expect,  (did  we  not  too 
well  know  their  inability,)  that  they  would  produce  an  amount  of  evi- 
dence from  their  especial  friends  in  support  of  each  of  the  above  points, 
which  would  cover  their  adversaries  with  overwhelming  confusion  and 
dismay.  Our  simple  demand,  then,  that  they  establish  the  foregoing 
propositions  from  the  Fathers,  is  most  fair.  If  they  fail  to  do  it,  they 
must  yield  the  ground. 

It  will  not  do  simply  to  recite,  as  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee  "  has 
done,  with  wonderful  complacency,  a  few  passages  where  the  Fathers 
speak  of  "Bishops,  Elders,  and  Deacons,"  and  then  at  once  draw  the 
conclusion  that  these  terms  of  office,  because  they  correspond  in  name, 
do  necessarily  mean  the  same  thing,  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  that 
they  do  in  the  writings  of  Prelatists — that  the  officers  which  the  former 
thus  enumerate  correspond  in  rank  and  in  their  separate  functions  with 
the  officers  who  bear  the  same  name  in  a  modern  Episcopal  Church. 
T'his  is  taking  for  granted,  in  his  accustomed  way,  the  very  thing  to 
be  proved.  It  is  leaping  from  the  premises  to  the  conclusion  at  a  bound. 
Let  him  prove  that  the  Fathers  meant  by  these  terms  the  same  thing  that 

*  To  give  "one  of  a  thousand,"  take  the  following  : — "The  argument  then  to  be  pre- 
sented is  this — that  all  writers  of  the  first  three  centuries  whb  describe  in  any  way  the  con- 
ditionofthe  CAurcA,  in  every  hint  they  give,  and  in  eveuy  fact  they  state,  show 
most  plainly,  that  no  ministry  was  known  or  recognized  in  that  day,  but  the  same  three- 
fold orders  of  Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons,  which  have  continued  down  even  to  us,  in 
uninterrupted  succession." — DoMe  Witness  of  the  Church,  by  Eev.  Wm.  Ingraham  Kipt 
Rector  of  St.  PauVs  Churchy  Albany,  N.  Y. 

tDiscourses,  p.  58. 


VIEWS    OP   THE   FATHERS.  127 

Prelatists  now  do — that  he  now  does — let  him  prove  it  by  showing 
that  they  assigned  the  same  independent  and  superior  functions  (abovd 
Presbyters)  to  their  "  Bishops,"  in  fact  and  by  Divine  authority,  as  are 
now  claimed  by  Prelates — let  him  but  prove  this  one  plain  and  reason- 
able point  from  all  "  the  writers  of  the  first  three  centuries,"  who  he 
says  "  WITH  ONE  voice"  declare  in  favor  of  Prelacy — and  we  will  ac 
knowledge  that  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee"  has  done  his  cause  a  service 
worth  boasting  of,  if  mere  human  testimony  deserves  so  high  a  regard. 
By  merely  reciting,  parrot-like,  these  terms  from  the  Fathers — "  Bishops 
Elders  and  Deacons" — he  has  proved  nothing  to  the  purpose  ;  and  yet, 
this  we  affirm,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  is  the  gist  of  his  whole  ar- 
gument from  that  boasted  source  !  * 

*  To  show  the  truth  of  this,  we  give  below  a  specimen  of  his  argument.  It  is  taken 
from  his  quotations  from  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  a  writer  whom  he  has  more  largely 
cited  than  any  other.  He  represents  Ignatius  as  saying  :  "  To  the  Magnesians  '  I  ex- 
hort you  that  you  study  to  do  all  things  in  a  Divine  concord  ;  your  Bishop  presiding  in 
the  place  of  God,  your  Presbyters  in  the  place  of  the  Council  of  the  Apostles ;  and  your 
Deacons,  most  dear  to  me,  being  intrusted  with  the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ.'  To  the 
Trallians :  '  Lei  all  reverence  the  Deacons  as  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Bishop  as  the 
Father,  and  the  Presbyters  as  the  Sanhedrim  of  God  and  College  of  the  Apostles — he  that 
does  any  thing  without  the  Bishop  and  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  is  not  pure  in  his  con. 
science.'  To  the  Philadelphians  :  '  To  those  who  were  in  unity  with  their  Bishop  and 
Presbyters  and  Deacons — there  is  one  Bishop  with  his  Presbyters,  and  the  Deacons,  my 
fellow  servants — Give  heed  to  the  Bishop  and  to  the  Presbytery  and  to  the  Deacons — 
do  nothing  without  the  Bishop.'  To  the  Smyrneans,  over  whom  Polycarp,  the  disciple 
of  St.  John,  presided  as  Bishop :  'See  that  ye  all  follow  your  Bishop,  as  Jesus  Christ  did 
the  Father ;  and  the  Presbyters  as  the  Apostles ;  and  reverence  the  Deacons  as  the  com- 
mand of  God — my  soul  be  security  for  them  that  submit  to  their  Bishop  with  their  Pres 
byters  and  Deacons.'"  Bishop  Otey  then  adds :  "  Is  it  possible  for  any  intelligent  and 
sound  mind  to  read  these  quotations  and  come  to  any  other  conclusion  than  that  there 
were  three  •rders — Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons — in  the  Christian  mmistry  in  the  age  of 
Ignatius  ?  If  his  words  prove  any  thing  they  undoubtedly  show  that  in  the  first  centu- 
ry, the  Christian  Church  was  Episcopally  constituted— that  the  three  orders  of  the 
ministry  were  regarded  as  of  Divine  institution  and  considered  necessa^  to  the  regular 
constitution  of  every  Church. "  Again  he  remarks :  "  Such  language  partakes  largely, 
as  you  perceive,  of  the  hyperbolical  style  of  the  Orientals.  We  are  quoting  Ignatius, 
you  will  remember,  not  to  settle  the  point  of  reverence  and  dignity  due  to  the  ministry, 
but  to  show  the  fact  stated,  that  the  ministry  consisted  of  three  orders."  Now  here  is  a  fair 
specimen  of  the  testimony  for  Prelacy  which  Bishop  Otey  derives  from  the  Fathers.  la 
it  not  evident  at  a  glance,  that  the  whole  argument  in  these  extracts,  consists  in  the 
correspondency  of  terms  used  by  Ignatius  and  our  opponents  ?  And  even  Bishop  Otey 
virtually  admits  it-  He  does  not  even  attempt  to  show  a  correspondency  in  official  ranks 
powers,  and  duties ! — without  which  all  agreement  in  name  is  empty  air-  He  merely  says : 
i'  We  are  quoting  Ignatius  to  show  the  fact  stated,  that  the  ministry  consisted  of  three 
orders."  Well— suppose  it  did— does  it  necessarily  follow  that  these  "  three  orders  "cor- 
responded in  all  their  powers  and  duties  with  the  "  three  orders  "  of  Prelacy  ?  This  is 
the  very  point  to  be  proved— not  passed  over  in  silence !    But  more  of  Ignatius,  by-and-by . 


128  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

It  is  quite  wonderful  that  he  did  not  also  quote  the  Confession  of  Faith 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  show  that  Presbyterians  believe  in  the 
Divine  right  of  Prelacy !  He  might  have  done  it  quite  as  conclusively 
as  he  has  quoted  the  Fathers  to  prove  the  same  thing.  If  he  had  turned 
to  the  Form  of  Government,  chapter  3,  section  2,  he  would  have  found 
it  there  stated  that  "  Bishops,  Elders  and  Deacons"  are  regarded  by 
Presbyterians  as  "  the  ordinary  and  perpetual  officers  in  the  church." 
Here  are  precisely  the  same  terms  out  of  which  he  makes  so  much  in 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers.  Now  if  there  be  such  a  charm  in  a  name, 
why  does  not  the  Confession  of  Faith  maintain  the  prelatical  form  of 
government  as  really  as  Bishop  Otey's  witnesses  among  the  Fathers  ? 
No — we  cannot  consent  to  be  surprised  out  of  our  wits  by  a  mere  play 
upon  words!  Is  Bishop  Otey  willing  to  mislead  his  readers  by  a  ^m- 
gle  ? — by  a  mere  correspondency  of  sound  upon  the  tympanum  of  the 
ear? 

We  have  stated  what  is  fairly  demanded  of  Prelatists  before  they  can 
place  to  their  exclusive  credit  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers.  They  must 
show  that  where  the  Fathers  speak  of  "Bishops,  Presbyters  and  Deacons," 
they  mean  what  is  now  meant  by  themselves  in  using  the  same  terms — 
they  must  show  that  their  various  functions  in  both  cases,  correspond — 
in  a  word,  as  the  point  of  chief  importance,  they  must  show  that  the 
"  Bishops"  of  the  Fathers  possessed  and  exercised  the  sole  authority  to 
ordain,  and  were  in  every  point  of  view  superior  in  official  rank  to 
Presbyters,  and  that  they  possessed  this  superiority  on  the  ground  of  the 
Divine  authority  of  the  Word  of  God.  Nothing  short  of  this  will  avail. 
And  yet,  nothing  of  all  this  has  Bishop  Otey  even  attempted  !  We 
might  therefore  dismiss  the  Fathers  at  once.  We  care  comparatively 
little  for  their  testimony  whether  it  be  pro  or  co7i.  The  Scriptures  are 
our  sole  authority.  To  them  only  shall  we  submit.  But  as  we  have 
been  invited»and  urged  into  the  field  of  antiquity,  we  choose  not  to  leave 
it,  until  we  ascertain  to  whom  it  rightfully  belongs. 

We  would  not  wage  a  long  battle,  even  though  we  knew  infallibly  that 
we  should  gain  possession  of  the  field.  Not  that  we  should  fear  the 
shock,  but  the  prize  would  not  repay  the  toil.  But  we  are  willing  to  en- 
gage  in  at  least  a  skirmish,  and  we  therefore  promise  to  show : 

1.  That  the  Fathers  "  of  the  first  three  centuries,"  as  well  as  those  of  a 
later  date,  acknowledge  the  Scriptural  identity  of  Preshyters  and  BisJwps. 

2.  That  they  declare  Presbyters  to  have  been  the  governors  of  the 
Church  in  fact  "  in  their  day,"  and  by  Divine  authority. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    FATHERS.  129 

3.  That  while  they  never  ascribe  to  Bishops  the  sole  Divine  authori- 
ty to  ordain,  they  do  ascribe  the  function  of  ordination  to  Presbyters  alone, 
as  having  been  exercised  by  them  in  fact  "in  their  day,"  and  upon  the 
ground  of  Divine  authority. 

These  propositions  will  suffice.  If  we  can  substantiate  them,  they 
will  prove  fatal  to  the  high  pretensions  uf  Prelacy  to  an  exclusive  sup- 
port from  the  Fathers. 

In  order  to  prove  the  foregoing  points,  we  shall  cite  chiefly  the  testi- 
mony of  the  very  uinesses,  whom  Bishop  Otey  has  arrayed,  following 
his  order.  We  shail  not  stop  to  notice  any  inaccuracies  in  his  presenta- 
tions, either  in  tjans;ati(;n,  or  fair  quotation.  His  whole  argument  from 
the  Fathers  as  we  have  shown,  (and  as  he  virtually  confesses,  indeed,) 
consists  in  ihe  identity  of  names  which  tliey  use  with  the  names  of  the 
mhustiy  in  his  own  Church — which  is  just  no  aigument  at  all.  Whether, 
therefore,  his  citations  be  just  or  not,  the  argument  is  unworthy  of  notice. 
We  shall  consequently,  be  content  with  shv-wing  that  his  own  witnesses 
maintain  all  we  contend  fir.  viz;  our  ihrcc  points — tLai  Bishops  and 
Presbyters  were  idtmicai — that  Piesbyters  were  the  ruisrs  of  thv;  Church 
— and  that  Presbyters  oriamrrf  lu  the  mii\i''i'j : — j:.'.  ,al  ihiA.dc  jure 
as  \V(-ii  us  defacio. 

I.  Bishop  Otey's  tirst  witness  is  Clement  of  Rome.  He  says  :  "He 
wrote  about  40  years  after  our  Lord's  death."*  Dr.  Cave,  a  Church  of 
England  divine,  whom  Prelatists  certainly  will  acknowledge  to  be  a  good 
authority,  places  Clenieni  A.  D.  70.  Dr.  Jortin  styles  Dr.  Cave  "the 
whitewasher  of  the  ancients."  Eusebius  places  the  beginning  of 
Clement's  "  bishopric  "  as  it  is  called,  A.  D.  92.  In  the  following  ex- 
tract from  Clement's  first  Epistle  to  Corinthians,  the  part  which  Bishop 
Otey  has  given  is  here  put  in  italics,  (though  we  do  not  copy  his  quota- 
tion entire,  or  follow  his  translation  literally,)  and  the  part  we  cite  which 
he  has  omitted,  is  enclosed  in  brackets.  Clement  says :  "  The  Apostles 
preaching  through  countries  and  cities,  appointed  the  frst  fruits  of  their 
conversion  to  be  Bishops  and  Deacons  over  such  as  should  afterward  be- 
lieve, [having  first  proved  them  by  the  Spirit.  Nor  was  this  any  thing 
new,  seeing  that  long  before  it  was  written  concerning  Bishops  and 
Deacons  ;  for  thus  saith  the  Scripture  in  a  certain  place,  I  will  appoint 
their  Bishops  in  righteousness  and  their  Deacons  in  faith.]  Clement 
here  speaks  of  Bishops  as  being  placed  "  over  "  the  flock,  as  rulers  or 
governors.  But  he  never  says  a  word  about  the  prerogative  of  Bishops 
in  ordination — not  a  word  about  their  governing  ministers  as  well  as 

•  Discourses,  p.  58. 


130  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

people.  Hear  now  what  he  says  about  Presbyters  :  ["  Ye  walked  ac- 
cording to  the  laws  of  God,  being  subject  to  those  who  had  the  rulb 
OVER  you,  and  giving  the  honor  that  was  fitting  to  such  as  were  Pres- 
byters among  you."'\  Again :  ["  Only  let  the  flock  of  Christ  be  in 
peace  with  the  Presbyters  that  are  set  over  it."]  Again :  ["  Do  ye, 
therefore,  who  first  laid  the  foundation  of  this  sedition,  submit  yourselves 
to  your  Presbyters."]  Again:  ["It  is  a  shame,  *  *  *  that  the  most 
firm  and  ancient  Church  of  the  Corinthians  should,  by  one  or  two  per- 
sons, he  led  into  a  sedition  against  its  Presbyters."]  Again :  ["  It 
would  be  no  small  sin  in  us,  should  we  cast  off"  those  from  their  Episco- 
pate who  holily  and  without  blame  fulfil  the  duties  of  it.  Blessed  are 
those  Presbyters,  who,  having  finished  their  course  before  these  times, 
have  obtained  a  ■perfect  and  fruitful  dissolution."^ 

Clement  here  in  the  most  direct  terms  possible,  speaks  of  Presbyters  as 
the  rulers  of  the  flock,  as  "  set  over  it,"  and  exhorts  the  same  persons  to 
be  in  submission  to  Presbyters,  whom  he  had  just  before  exhorted  to 
yield  submission  to  Bishops.  He  speaks  of  the  sin  of  casting  the  Pres- 
byters out  of  their  "  Episcopate  "  or  Bishopric,  and  of  the  happiness 
those  Presbyters  enjoy  who  had  finished  the  duties  of  their  Episcopate 
before  these  times  of  sedition  had  occurred.  He  thus  uses  the  terms 
Presbyter  and  Bishop  as  synonymous,  precisely  as  they  are  used  in  the 
New  Testament,  proving  that  in  his  day  they  were  one  and  the  same, 
and  that  Presbyters  were  the  proper  rulers  of  the  Churches.  Had  there 
been  a  Diocesan  Bishop  over  the  Chui^ch  of  Corinth,  Clement  would  un- 
doubtedly have  at  least  alluded  to  him  in  some  way,  and  he  would  have 
been  the  proper  and  only  person  to  have  quelled  this  sedition — that  is 
upon  prelatical  principles.  All  that  we  have  put  in  brackets  from  Cle- 
ment,  Bishop  Otey  has  seen  fit  to  pass  without  notice  !  In  his  last  re- 
mark, however,  on  this  Father,  he  seems  to  have  stumbled  on  the  truth, 
strange  to  tell.  He  calls  Clement  "a  writer  who  was  himself  chosen  by 
the  Apostles  and  appointed  to  preside  as  Bishop  over  one  of  the  Churches 
which  they  had  planted!  /  "  *  This  is  precisely  our  idea  of  a  Scriptural 
&nd primitive  Bishop — a  man  appointed  "over  one  Church."  How  un- 
like that  of  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee^'  was  the  jurisdiction  of  Father 
Clement!  "Murder  will  out !" 

We  give  now  barely  three  examples  to  show  what  Church  of  England 
divines  have  thought  of  Father  Clement.  Says  Bishop  Stillingfleet  in 
his  Irenicum :  "  Had  Episcopacy  been  instituted  on  the  occasion  of  the 

*  Discourses  p.  59. 


VIEWS    OP   THE   FATHERS.  131 

Schism  at  Corinth,  certainly,  of  all  places,  we  should  the  soonest  have 
heard  of  a  Bishop  [Prelate]  at  Corinth  for  the  remedying  of  it ;  and  yet 
always  of  all  places  those  heralds  that  derive  the  succession  of  Bishops 
from  the  Apostles'  times  are  the  most  plunged  whom  to  fix  on  at  Corinth. 
And  they  that  can  find  any  one  single  Bishop  at  Corinth,  at  the  time  when 
Clement  wrote  his  Epistle  to  them,  must  have  better  eyes  and  judgment 
than  the  deservedly  admired  Grotius.  What  could  be  said  with  greater 
freedom,  than  that  there  was  no  such  Episcopacy  then  at  Corinth  ?" — 
Milner  the  ecclesiastical  historian  says  :  "  At  first,  indeed,  and  for  some 
time,  Church  governors  were  only  of  two  ranks,  Presbyters  and  Deacons. 
At  least  this  appears  to  have  been  the  case  in  particular  instances,  as  at 
Philippi  and  at  Ephesus,  and  the  term  Bishop  was  corifounded  with  that 
of  Presbyter.  The  Church  of  Corinth  continued  long  in  this  state,  as 
far  as  one  may  judge  from  Clemens^  Epistle."*  Faber  is  still  more  ex- 
plicit. After  quoting  Clement,  he  says :  "  Here,  we  may  observe,  no 
more  than  two  orders  are  specified,  the  word  Bishops  being  plainly  used 
as  equivalent  to  the  word  Presbyters,  and  all  possibility  of  misapprehen- 
sion is  avoided  by  the  circumstance  of  Clement's  affirmation,  that  the 
appointment  of  these  two  orders  was  foretold  in  a  prophecy  which  an- 
nounced the  appointment  of  exactly  two  descriptions  of  spiritual  officers. 
Had  the  Church,  in  Clemenfs  time,  universally  acknowledged  and  believed 
that  three  distinct  orders  of  Clergy  had  been  appointed,  that  Father  never 
could  have  asserted  such  a  form  of  polity  to  be  foretold  in  a  prophecy, 
which  announced  the  appointment  of  no  more  than  two  sorts  of  officers, 
DESCRIBED  OS  being  overseers  and  ministers."  What  now  is  Father  Cle- 
ment worth  to  the  cause  of  Prelacy  ? 

II.  Bishop  Otey's  next  witness  is  Ignatius  He  places  him  "A.  D. 
71 " ;  Dr.  Cave,  A.  D.  101.  Many  of  the  most  eminent  writers 
among  Prelatists,  have  objected  to  the  Epistles  of  this  Father  on  strong 
grounds,  viz  :  as  being  in  many  places  evidently  interpolated  or  spurious, 
and  in  some  respects  grossly  heretical.  Says  Archbishop  Wake,  whose 
opinion  on  these  points  is  worthy  of  note  by  all :  "  They  labored  (the 
Epistles  of  Ignatius)  not  only  imder  many  impertinences  imbecoming 
the  character  of  that  great  man,  but  were  fraught  with  many  things  that 
were  altogether  fabulous :  nay,  if  we  may  credit  Archbishop  Usher,  had 
some  passages  in  them  that'  tended  to  corrupt  the  very  faith  of  Christ  in 
one  of  the  most  considerable  points.  ********  To  pass  by  the  first 
and  most  imperfect  (edition)  of  them,  the  best  that  for  a  long  time  was  ex- 
tant, contained  not  only  a  great  number  of  EpistlesyaZseZy  ascribed  to  this 

*  History  of  the  Church,  Gent.  2. 


132  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

author,  but  even  those  that  were  genuine,  so  altered  and  corrupted,  that 
it  was  hard  to  find  out  the  true  Ignatius  in  them. "  * 

The  following,  written  by  an  Episcopalian,  is  found  in  the  London 
Christian  Observer,  an  Episcopal  periodical,  which  is  circulated  in  this 
country.  Speaking  of  six  of  Ignatius'  Epistles,  he  says:  "These  com- 
positions will  surely  not  be  alleged  by  any  capable  and  candid  advocate 
for  primitive  Episcopacy  without  great  hesitation  :  by  many  they  will  be 
entirely  rejected.  I  do  not  mean  to  insinuate  that  the  whole  of  these  six 
Epistles  is  a  forgery :  on  the  contrary,  many  parts  of  them  afford  strong 
internal  evidence  of  their  own  genuineness  :  but  with  respect  to  the  par- 
ticular  passages  which  affect  the  present  dispute,  [about  the  polity  of  the 
primitive  Church]  there  is  not  a  sentence  which  I  would  venture 
TO  ALLEGE.  The  language  at  the  earliest  is  that  of  the  fourth  century." 
Besides  the  above  condemnatory  sentence  of  Prelatists,  the  most  dis- 
tinguished divines  of  continental  Europe,  reject  the  whole  of  them.  We 
give  a  sample,  though  our  opponents  may  esteem  it  nothing  worth.  Says 
Blondel :  "lam  constrained  to  believe  ihsX  they  are  forgeries."  Says 
Calvin :  "  There  is  nothing  more  filthy  than  that  trash  which  has  been 
published  under  the  name  of  Ignatius.  Therefore,  their  impudence  is 
the  more  intolerable,  who  furnish  themselves  with  such  forgeries,  for  the 
purpose  of  deception."*  Salmasius  declares  that  "  all  the  twelve  Epis- 
tles of  Ignatius  are  either  counterfeits,  or  certainly  corrupted  in  many 
places."  Upon  this  declaration  of  Salmasius,  Archbishop  Usher,  whose 
testimony  our  opponents  cannot  scorn,  however  much  they  might  that  of 
Salmasius  himself,  remarks — "  to  which  judgment  I  willingly  subscribe, 
having  certain  proof  that  six  of  them  are  counterfeits,  and  that  the  re- 
mainng  six  are  corrupted  by  interpolations  in  very  ,%any  places." '\  And 
yet,  forsooth,  the  learned  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee"  presents  Ignatius  as 
a  competent  witness  to  settle  the  question  as  to  the  polity  of  the  primitive 
Church  ! — as  a  witness  upon  whose  testimony  we  poor  unbelieving  "dis- 
senters" are  to  be  turned  out  of  the  Christian  fold,  and  p'aced  beyond  the 
reach  of  all  hope  of  the  grace  of  God,  except  in  some  intangible,  un- 
defined, and  indefinable,  terra  incognita,  ycleped  "uncovenanted  mer- 
cies!!"— and  this  presentation  is  made  by  the  Bishop  without  giving  the 
least  hint  to  his  readers  that  many  antiquarians  as  profoundly  learned 
as  the  world  ever  saw — and  many  in  his  own  Church,  too — have  repu- 
diated these  Epistles,  either  in  whole  or  in  part!!! 

But  let  us  gran<  them  to  be  genuine,  and  what  do  they  say  ?     Bishop 

♦Preliminary  Disc,  and  Pref.  to  his  translation. 

t  Christian  Institutes,  Book  1.  %  Usher^s  Dissertations. 


VIEWS  OF  thf:    FATHKRS.  l^'^ 

Otey  cites  several  of  the  Epistles  attributed  to  Ignatius,  and  he  has  no 
doubt  presented  the  strongest  passages  for  his  cause  he  could  find. 
The  argument  is  mainly  this — Ignatius  speaks  of  "Bishops,  Presby- 
ters, and  Deacons,  in  the  various  Churches,  ergo,  these  "Bishops" 
were  Prelates  or  Diocesans,  and  ergo,  the  Church  vv^as  prelatical  in 
his  time  !  But  let  us  interrogate  Ignatius  again.  The  following  points 
are  plain  for  his  writings  : 

1,  Whatever  rank  he  assigns  to  his  Bishops,  he  yet  makes  Presby- 
ters as  high  as  we  can  desire  for  our  argument — he  makes  them  to  occu- 
py the  j-^^ffce  o/"  ^/ic  ^^ws^/e*.  He  says :  "The  Presbyters  preside  in  the 
place  of  the  Council  of  the  Apostles,''^*  "Be  ye  subject  to  your  Presbyters 
as  to  the  Apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  our  hope.  Let  all  reverence  the 
Presbyters  as  the  Sanhedrim  of  God,  and  College  of  the  Apostles. 
Being  subject  to  your  Bishop)  as  to  the  command  of  God  ;  and  so 
LIKEWISE  to  the  Peseytrey."!  "See  that  ye  follow — the  Presbyters 
as  the  Apostlesy\  All  these  passages  are  from  the  approved  transla,- 
tion  of  Archbishop  Wake.  Now  if  this  testimony  of  Ignatius  is  worth 
any  thing  as  proof,  it  proves  just  this,  that  Presbyters  were  in  the  ^^place 
of  the  Apostlts  ;'"  that  is,  they  were  the  successors  of  the  Apostles  in  all 
the  ordinary  functions  of  their  ministry — in  preaching,  ruling,  ordain- 
ing, &c.  So  much  then  for  the  Ignatian  Presbyters.  This  is  quite 
enough  for  our  cause. 

But  2.  Let  us  look  at  the  Ignatian  Pishops.  It  is  evident  that  they 
were  parochial  Bishops,  (that  is,  each  placed  over  a  single  congrega- 
tion,) and  not  Diocesan.  To  quote  the  passages  at  length  to  show  this, 
would  be  to  weary  the  reader.  Suffice  it  to  say  as  the  most  direct  proof 
of  the  point  in  question,  (the  truth  of  which  cannot  be  denied)  that  the 
Church  over  which  each  Bishop  is  placed  of  which  this  Father  speaks, 
is  represented  as  meeting  in  one  place,  worshipping  in  one  assembly, 
having  one  communion  table,  &c.,  &c.  Now  can  all  this  be  predicated 
of  the  charge  which  a  Diocesan  has  %  A  Prelate  is  placed  over  many 
Churches,  meeting  in  various  places.  Besides,  it  is  worthy  of  note  that 
Ignatius  speaks  of  many  Bishops  near  together  ;  as  for  example,  the 
"Bishop  of  Magnesia,"  the  "Bishop  of  Tralles,"  &c.  Now  according 
to  the  best  authorities,  Magnesia  was  distant  from  Ephesus  about 
twelve  miles,  and  from  Tralles  about  three  miles.  Is  it  not  then  ridi- 
culous to  suppose  that  these  Ignatian  Bishops  were  Diocesans  ? — The 
"diocese"   of  the   "Bishop  of  Magnesia"  could  not  have  extended,  in 

*  Episile  to  the  Magntsians,  t-^Epistie  to  the  Trallians. 

t  Epistlo  to  the  Smyrnians. 


134  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

the  direction  of  Tialles  at  least,  more  than  a  mile  an  a  half,  or  two 
miles  !  Fiom  all  this,  it  is  evident  that  Ignatius'  "Bishops"  were  like 
those  we  contend  for — scriptural  Bishops,  each  the  Pastor  of  a  single 
congregation,  and  the  same  in  rank  as  Presbytei'S.  We  shall  now  dis- 
miss Ignatius,  leaving  our  oponents  to  make  as  much  of  him  as  they 
can,  after  giving  the  testimony  of  a  single  Church  of  England  divine. 
Bishop  tStillingfleet  says  in  his  Irenicum  :  "In  all  those  thirty-five  tes- 
timonies produced  out  of  Ignatius'  Epistlesybr  Episcojmcy,  I  can  meet 
with  but  one  which  is  brought  to  prove  the  least  semblance  of  an  insti- 
tution of  Christ  for  Episcopacy  ;  and  if  I  be  not  much  deceived,  tlie 
sense  of  that  pilace  is  clearly  mistaken."  We  can  spare  Ignatius. 

III.  Bishop  Otey's  next  witness  is  Polycarp,  who  was  cotemporary 
with  Ignatius.  We  have  one  Epistle  extant  which  goes  under  his  name. 
Bishop  Otey  takes  here  and  there  a  sentence  from  Polycarp,  and 
winds  up  by  saying  with  quite  a  triumphant  air,  "Here  again  is  direct 
evidence  against  that  parity  which  opposes  itself  to  Episcopacy."*  Does 
Bishop  Otey  mean  by  this  that  "here  is  direct  evidence"  for  Episco- 
pacy 1 — Plainly  this  is  his  meaning.  And  yet,  it  is  a  truth,  that  Poly- 
carp never  once  even  mentions  such  a  word  as  Bishop,  from  the  hcginning 
to  the  end  of  his  Epistle  !  The  "three  orders"  of  Prelacy  are  not  to  be 
found  there  even  in  name  !  The  "Bishop  of  Tennessee,"  therefore,  is 
obliged  to  palm  off  this  venerable  martyr  upon  his  readers  as  a  witness 
in  his  favor,  without  even  the  plausible  gingle  which  forms  his  argu- 
ment in  the  other  cases  !  But  Polycarpr  says  something  of  Presbyters, 
if  he  does  not  of  Bishops,  as  follows  :  "Polycarp  and  the  Preshyters 
that  are  with  him,  to  the  Church  of  God  which  is  at  Philippi."  "I  am 
greatly  afflicted  for  Valens,  who  was  once  a  Presbyter  among  you." 
"Let  the  Presbyters  be  compassionate  and  merciful  towards  all."  He 
exhorts  the  Church  at  Philippi,  to  be  "subject  to  (that  is  to  obey)  the 
Presbyters  and  Deacons  as  unto  God  and  Christ."  But  in  all  this 
Epistle,  not  one  word  is  found  about  Bishops.  Now  is  it  at  all  probable 
that  Polycarp  would  have  omitted,  even  to  notice  the  Diocesan,  if  such 
a  personage  had  jurisdiction  over  the  Church  at  Philippi  ?  This  is  quite 
sufficient  for  our  purpose — Presbyters  governed  the  people.  He  men- 
tions no  officers  superior  to  them  who  had  any  authority  in  the  Church 
at  Philippi,  consequently  the  Presbyters,  we  may  naturally  conclude, 
possessed  full  ministerial  authority. 

IV.  The  next  witness  Bishop  Otey  cites  is  IrenjEus.  We  think  it 
will  be   seen  that  the  "Bishop  of  Tennessee"  has  fallen  into  unfor- 

•  Discourses,  p  60. 


VIEWS   OF    THE    FATHERS. 


135 


tunate  company,  in  consulting  this  Father.  Hia  partial  quotations  may 
do  for  his  cause  where  they  are  not  knotvn,  to  be  partial ;  but  we  shall 
show,  in  this  instance,  by  producing  the  most  undeniable  evidence, 
that  Bishop  Otey  is  a  very  unsafe  guide  in  giving  the  testimony  of  the 
Fathers.  Here  is  his  own  statement :  "We  come  to  the  second  cen- 
tury, and  here  we  find  Irenaeus  the  disciple  of  Polycarp,  and  Bishop 
of  Lyons,  A.  D.  180,  using  the  succession  of  Bis /tops  from  the  Apostles 
as  an  argument  against  heretics.  He  says  :  'We  can  rekon  up  those 
whom  the  Apostles  ordained  to  be  Bishops  in  the  several  Churches^ 
and  who  they  were  that  succeeded  them  down  to  our  time.'  And  lie  pro- 
ceeds," continues  Bishop  Otey,  "to  give  us  the  succession  frovi  the  Apos- 
tles down  to  Elutherius,  the  12th  in  order,  who  was  Bishop  of  Ro7ne 
when  Irenccus  torote."*  This  is  every  word  which  Bishop  Otey  gives 
us  of  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus  ;  and  it  is  given  of  course  both  to  show 
that  he  was  a  believer  in  Prelacy,  and  as  the  proof  of  it.  He  would 
have  us  believe  that  this  Father  is  here  speaking  of  a  "succession"  of 
Diocesan  Bishops,  and  of  course  that  no  other  succession  can  be  admit- 
ted. We  shall  take  the  liberty  of  adding  a  little  to  what  the  "Bishop 
of  Tennessee"  has  given  us,  and  shall  show  by  the  addition,  that  Ire- 
nseus  does  not  mean  Diocesan  Bishops  or  Prelates,  hut  teaches  that 
Presbyters  and  Bishops  were  the  same  in  his  day,  in  their  rank  and 
functions.  We  give  what  this  Father  says  in  a  parallel  : 
Of  Presbyters.  i  Of  Bishops. 

"When  we  appeal  to  that  Apos-      "The  Apostolic    tradition  is  pre 
tolical  tradition  which  is  preserved  sent  in  every  Church.   By  showing 


in  the  Churches  through  the  suc- 
cession of  Presbyters,  they  presume 
they  are  wiser  not  only  than  the 
Presbyters,  but  even  than  the  Apos 
ties,  and  that  they  have  found  the 
truth  in  a  purer  form." — L.  3,  C.  2. 
"Wherefore  obedience  should  be 
given  to  those  who  are  Presbyters 
in  the  Church,  who  have,  as  we 
have  shown,  succession  from,  the 
Apostles,  and  who  ^oith  the  succes- 
sion of  THEIR  Episcopate,  have  a 
sure  deposite  of  the  truth," — Lib. 
4,  Cap.  43. 


the  tradition  and  declared  faith 
of  the  greatest  and  most  ancient 
Church  of  Rome,  which  she  receiv- 
ed from  the  Apostles,  and  which  is 
come  to  us  through  the  succession 
of  the  Bishops,  we  confound  all," 
&c. — Lib.  3,  Cap.  3. 

"The  true  knowledge  is  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Apostles  according  to 
the  succession  of  Bishops,  to  whom 
they  delivered  the  Church  in  every 
p!ace,  which  doctrine  hath  extend- 
ed to  us  fully  preserved. — Lib."  4, 
Cap.  44. 


•  Discourses,  pp.  60,  61- 


136 


PRELACY  EXAMINED. 


If  these  examples  do  not  sufficiently  show  that  Irenaeus  held  to  the 
identity  of  Presbyters  and  Bishops,  and  maintained  that  Presbyters 
were  the  real  successors  of  the  Apostles,  (in  their  ordinary  ministry 
of  course,)  we  give  another  example  where  he  idetitifies  by  name  the 
same  persons  as  Bishops  and  Presbyters.  It  is  doubtless  to  the  enume- 
ration in  the  left-hand  coluinn  of  the  following  parallel  that  Bishop 
Otey  alludes  in  saying — "He  proceeds  to  give  us  the  succession  from 
the  Apostles  down  to  Eiutherius,  the  12th  in  order,  who  was  Bishop 
of  Rome  when  Irenaeus  wrote."  He  is  very  careful  not  to  allude  to  the 
fact  that  Irenasus  calls  the  same  persons  Presbyters,  as  is  seen  in  the 
right-hand  column  !  Oh  !  no  ! — that  would  be  death  to  the  cause  to 
support  wliic]> Irenaeus  is  cited  !    But  hear  the  Father  : 

The   Bishops.  The  Presbyters. 


"The  Apostles  founding  and  in- 
structing that  Church  (of  Rome) 
delivered  to  Linus  the  Episcopate. 
Anacletus  succeeded  him ;  after 
him  Clement  obtained  the  Epis- 
copate from  the  Apostles.  To  Cle 
ment  succeeded  Evaristus,    to  him 


"Those  Presbyters  before  Soter, 
who  governed  the  Church  (of  Rome) 
which  thou,  Victor,  now  governest, 
I  mean  Anicetics,  Pius,  Hugynus, 
Telesphorus,  and  Sixtus,  they  did 
not  observe  it,  (the  day  of  keeping 
Easter)  :     and  those    Presbyters 


Alexander,  then  Sixtus,  and  afterw/^o  preceded  you,  though  they  did 
him  Telesphorus,  then  Hugynus,\not  observe  it  themselves,  yet  sent 
aheT  him.  Pius,  then  Atiicetus,   and  the  Eucharist  to    those    of    other 


when  Soter  had  succeeded  Anice 
tus,  then  Eiutherius  had  the  Epis 
copate  in  the  12th  place." — Lib.  3, 
Cap.  3. 


Churches  who  did  observe  it.  And 
when  blessed  Polycarp,  in  the  days 
of  Anicetus,  came  to  Rome,  he  did 
not  much  persuade  Anicetus  to 
observe  it,  as  he  (Anicetus)  de- 
clared that  the  custom  of  the  Pres- 
byters w?io  were  his  predecessors 
should  be  retained." — Epistle  to 
Victor,  Bisho'p  of  Rome. 
The  above  scarcely  admits  of  comment.  If  this  parallel  does  not 
show  that  in  the  days  of  Irenaeus  Presbyters  and  Bishops  were  the 
same,  it  would  be  difficult  to  express  such  identity  by  any  arrangement 
of  words  of  which  human  language  is  composed.  Indeed,  taking  all 
the  passages  in  the  foregoing  parallels,  and  we  find  that  the  Apostolical 
succession,  the  Episcopal  succession,  and  the  Presbyterial  succession, 
are  interchangeably  ascribed  to  the  same  persons,  and  expressly  repre- 
sented as  the  same  thing.     If  it  had  been  the  expi'ess  and  sole  object 


VIEWS    OF    THE    FATHERS.  137 

of  Irenaeus  to  represent  the  oneness  of  office  and  person  to  which  he 
applies  tlie  terms  Bisliop  and  Presbyter,  he  could  not  have  done  it 
more  satisfactoiily.  It  is  the  unavoidable  conclusion,  therefore,  fi'om 
the  writings  of  this  Father,  that  Presbyters  had  full  ministerial  autho- 
rity to  preach,  rule,  ordain,  &c.,  for  his  Bishops  were  but  Presbyters, 
and  there  was  no  one  above  them. 

We  shall  dismiss  Irenaeus,  after  giving  two  examples  of  the  opinions 
of  distinguished  Prelatists.  Bishop  Stillingfleet  says  :  "  And  what 
strange  confusion  must  this  cause  in  any  one's  mind  that  seeks  for  a 
succession  of  Episcopal  power  over  Presbyters  from  the  Apostles  by 
the  testimony  of  Irenaeus,  when  he  so  plainly  attributes  both  the  suc- 
cessiofi  to  Presbyters  and  the  Episcopacy  too,  which  he  sjjeaks  of." 
This  explicit  statement  of  the  Bishop  of  Worcester,  we  should  think, 
is  quite  enough  to  cover  the  "Bishop  of  Tennessee,"  with  a  little 
"strange  confusion  !"  Another  recent  Church  of  England  writer  who 
signs  himself  "Misopapisticus,"  says  :  "As  to  Bishops  distinct  from 
Presbyters,  we  have  no  evidence  except  that  of  Ignatius  for  the  first 
two  centuries.  Clement  and  Polycarp  most  clearly  recognized  but 
two  ordei's.  Barnabas  and  Hernias  have  nothing  distinct  on  the  sub- 
ject. Justin  mentions  only  two  officers  in  the  Church  in  his  time,  whom 
he  calls  President  and  Deacon.  Irenaeus  uses  the  terms  Bishop  and 
Presbyter  indiscriminately.  Thus  we  see  the  weight  of  evidence,  during 
the  two  first  centuries,  is  against  the  three  orders,  which  may  natur- 
ally create  a  suspicion  that  those  passages  in  Ignatius  which  refer  to 
them  are  interpolations,  for  he  stands  alone  in  what  he  states,  for  the 
fii'st  two  centuries,  and  not  only  alone,  but  opposed  by  the  strongest 
authories,  during  that  period^  We  recommend  these  statements  to 
the  especial  notice  of  the  "Bishop  of  Tennessee,"  and  of  the  Rev. 
Wm.  Ingraham  Kip,  and  other  Prelatists,  who,  like  them,  seem  to 
take  a  special  pleasure  in  declaring  that  "the  writers  of  the  first  three 
centuries  testify  with  one  voice'^  in  favor  of  Prelacy.  If  "a  little  learn- 
ing is  a  dangerous  thing,"  how  very  "dangerous"  must  that  have  be- 
come which  has  been  accumulating  for  "twenty  yeais  !" 

V.  Clement  of  Alexandria  comes  next  in  order  on  Bishop  Otey's 
list,  whom  he  makes  "the  cotemporary  cf  Irenaeus."  Some  standard 
Avriters  place  him  A.  D.  204.  But  the  time  is  not  mateiial.  If  he  was, 
however,  "the  cotemporary  of  Irenaeus,"  he  will  be  likely  to  testify 
just  as  Irenaeus  has  done,  making  his  Bishops  and  Presbyters  the  same. 
We  shall  see.  All  that  Bishop  Otey  gives  us  to  show  that  Clement 
declares  in  favor  of  Prelacy  in  his  day,  is  the  following  :  "There  are 


138  PRELACY    EXAMINKD. 

some  precepts  which  relate  to  Presbyters,  others  which  belong  to 
Bishops,  and  other  respecting  Deacons."*  This  may,  when  viewed 
through  a  pair  of  prelatical  spectacles  be  deemed  conclusive  against 
us.  But  the  whole  argument  consists  in  the  old  gingle  of  names.  Is  a 
word  here  said  about  these  "Bishops"  being  superior  in  rank  to  the 
"Presbyters  ]" — about  their  exclusive  authority  in  ruling  Pastors  and 
people,  ordaining,  &c. — matters  which  are  now  among  Prelatists  con- 
fined to  their  Diocesans  ?■  Not  a  hint  of  it.  Besides,  if  Clement's 
"Bishops"  were  Prelates,  he  is  guilty  of  a  great  indignity,  in  naming 
"Presbyters"  before  them  !  His  order  is — "Presbyters,  Bishops,  and 
Deacons."  Truly,  he  was  a  novice  in  that^couitesy  which  is  now  every 
where  among  Episcopalians  deemed  due  to  their  Bishops.  Who  evei- 
.saw  a  sentence  penned  by  a  Prelatist  where  "Priests"  were  foisted  in 
before  "Bishops  ]"  Was  ever  such  audacity  heai'd  of  in  these  latter 
days  ? 

But  let  us  understand  what  Clement  meant  by  Presbyters  and  Bish- 
ops, by  examining  other  passages.  Clement  himself  was  a  Presbyter 
of  the  Church  in  Alexandria.  With  this  fact  in  view,  notice  the  fol- 
lowing from  him  :  "  We  who  have  rule  over  the  Churches,  are  shep- 
herds and  pastors,  after  the  image  of  the  Good  Sli£pherd."t  "In  the 
Church,  the  Presbyters  are  intrusted  with  the  dignified  ministry  ;  the 
Deacons  with  the  subordinate."!  These  passages  show  that  Presbyters 
were  the  rulers  over  the  Churches,  and  held  the  first  office  in  them. 
The  following  exhibit  the  identity  of  Bishops  and  Presbyters.  Speak- 
ing of  the  scriptural  directions  about  marriage,  he  says  :  "But  he 
must  be  the  husband  of  one  wife  only,  whether  he  be  a  Presbyter,  or 
layman,  if  he  would  use  matrimony  without  reprehension."  On  the 
same  subject,  and  of  the  same  person  just  called  a  Presbyter,  he  says 
in  the  same  passage  :  "What  can  they  say  to  these  things  who  inveigh 
against  marriage,  since  the  Apostle  enjoins  that  the  Bishop  to  be  set 
over  the  Church,  be  one  who  rules  his  own  house  well  "?"§  Again  he 
applies  "Presbyter"  and  "Bishop"  to  the  same  individual,  in  the 
same  paragraph.  This  he  would  not  have  done,  had  that  distinction 
in  the  terms  then  existed  which  now  characterizes  the  Episcopal 
Church.  Speaking  of  a  tradition  about  the  Apostle  John,  he  says  : 
"Beholding  a  young  man  of  a  portly  body,  a  gracious  countenance,  and 
fervent  mind,  he  (John)  looked  upon  the  Bishop  who  was  set  over 
all,  and  said,  I  commit  this  young  man  to  thy  custody,  in  presence  uf 
the  Church,   and  Christ  bearing  me  witness.*****  And  the  Presbyter 

*Dis.,p.61.  tFadag  )g,  Lib.  1.  |Siromata,  Lio.  1.         tStra.,  Lib.  3. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    FATHEKS.  139 

taking  tlie  young  man,  brought  him  to  his  own  house,"  &c.*  This  tes- 
tim'^ny  is  too  plain  to  neod  comment.  Clemen*:  evidently  knew  no  such 
per..w.:agt  i.n  his  day  as  a  Prelate,  ruling  over  Pastors  and  people  and 
with  the  sole  ordaining  power.  His  Presbyters  and  Bishops  were  the 
same. 

VI.  "TERTULLiAN,  a  Celebrated  Presbyter  of  the  Church  in  Africa," 
is  Bishop  Otey's  next  witness  to  support  the  tottering  fabric  of  Pre- 
lacy. He  says  of  him :  "He  (Tertullian)  testifies  that  Bishops  were 
in  his  native  land,  and  had  been  so  from  the  earliest  introduction  of 
the  Gospel  into  the  country."!  This  is  all  wonderfully  conclusive  in 
favor  of  Prelacy  !  Who  ever  denied  or  doubted  this  alleged  state- 
ment of  Tertullian  ?  We  grant  it  to  the  full  extent.  But  of  what  kmd 
were  these  African  Bishops  %  Were  they  Prelates,  or  scriptural  Bish- 
ops, the  Pastors  of  single  congregations  ?  Had  the  "Bishop  of  Tennes- 
see" afforded  us  something  from  Tertullian  to  settle  this  question,  he 
would  have  done  something  more  to  the  purpose  than  he  has  done  by 
giving  z.  2>artial  quotation  about  the  power  of  the  Bishop  in  "baptism." 
He  quotes  Tertullian  as  speaking  thus  :  "The  Bishop  has  the  power 
of  conferring  baptism,  and  under  him  the  Presbyters  and  Deacons, 
but  not  without  the  authority  of  the  Bishop."|  And  here  the  candid 
"Bishop  of  Tennessee,"  stops  short !  Why  did  he  notjinish  the  sen- 
tence he  began  1  We  will  begin  at  the  same  place,  and  with  his  per- 
mission will  carry  the  extract  a  little  farther.  It  is  as  follows  :  "The 
Bishop  has  the  power  of  conferring  baptism  :  and  under  him  the  Pres- 
byters and  Deacons,  but  not  without  the  authority  of  the  Bishop,  he- 
cause  of  the  honor  of  the  Church.  This  being  preserved,  peace  is  se- 
cured ;  otherwise  the  right  belongs  even  to  laymeny\  Now  granting 
for  the  moment  that  by  "Bishop,"  Tertullian  means  Prelate,  (which  we 
shall  show  he  does  not,)  he  does  not  plead  any  semblance  of  Divine 
authority  for  his  prerogative  respecting  "baptism  ;"  (which  is  the  point 
of  vital  consequence,  to  our  opponents,  as  the  simple  existence  of  the 
fact  of  such  authority  in  his  time,  would  of  itself  he  of  small  moment 
and  of  actually  no  avail  to  establish  the  claims  of  Prelacy  upon  Scrip- 
ture warrant) — but  on  the  contrary,  he  plainly  intimates  that  Divine 
authority  was  not  the  ground  of  this  prerogative,  it  being  allowed  the 
Bishop  "because  of  the  honor  of  the  Church."  So  far  from  saying 
that  the  "Bishop"  exercised  this  prerogative  dejure  Divino,  he  ex- 
presssly  states  that  "the  right  (of  conferring  baptism)  belongs  even 
to  laymen^' — a  manifest  heresy  which  we  shall  not  stop  to  controvert. 
*c>tra.,  Lib.  6.    t  Discourses,  p.  61.     +  Discourses,  p.  01.     ^  De  Baplisnio,  Cap  17. 


140  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

But  Tertullian's  "Bishops"  like  those  of  the  other  Fathers  we  have 
cross-examined,  were  not  Prelates  but  Presbyters.  This  is  evident 
from  the  fact  that  he  ascribes  to  Presbyters,  full  ministerial  powers. 
He  says:  "In  our  religious  assemblies,  approved  Elders  (or  F*resbyters) 
preside,  having  received  that  honor  not  by  bribes,  but  by  the  suffrages 
of  their  brethren."*  "We  receive  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
from  the  hands  of  wowebutthe  Presidents  of  our  assemblies. "t  Again, 
in  the  same  work  :  "Before  we  go  to  the  water  to  be  baptised,  we 
first  in  the  Church,  under  the  hand  of  the  President,  profess  to  re- 
nounce the  devil."  Now  what  can  more  plainly  show  that  Presbyters 
were  the  governors  of  the  Church  in  his  day  ]  They  presided  in  reli- 
gious assemblies,  administered  the  sacraments,  &c.  Nothing,  to  be 
sure,  is  said  about  their  exercising  the  rite  of  ordination  ;  neither  is 
any  thing  said  about  Bishops'  ordaining ;  much  less,  about  this  being 
a  prerogative  of  Bishops  alone.  What  then  are  we  to  infer  ]  Plainly, 
that  Presbyters  possessed  full  ministerial  powers,  and  were  substan- 
tially the  same  as  Bishops  ;  and  that  when  he  speaks  of  Bishops,  he 
means  the  Pastors  of  single  congregations,  and  not  Prelates. 

But  it  maybe  asked,  does  not  Tertullian  sj^eak  of  Bishops  as  having 
a  "power  of  conferring  baptism"  which  Presbyters  had  not,  and  does 
not  this  show  a  superiority  of  rank  and  order  1  This,  at  first  sight,  ap- 
pears to  be  the  case,  in  the  passage  which  Bishop  Otey  left  unfinished, 
and  which  we  completed  for  him.  But  as  we  before  had  to  add  to  the 
end  of  his  extract,  to  show  wlnj  "the  Bishop  has  the  power  of  conferring 
baptism,"  so  now  we  must  add  to  the  heginning  of  it,  to  show  who  the 
Bishop  is!  Bishop  Otey  seems  to  have  had  a  wonderful  liking  for  the 
middle  only.  It  is  sometimes  safe  to  avoid  extremes  !  But  here  is  the 
passage,  beginning,  middle,  and  end  :  "The  highest  Priest,  who  is\\\e 
Bishop,  has  the  power  of  conferring  baptism  ;  then  the  Presbyters  and 
Deacons,  yet,  not  without  the  authority  of  the  Bishop,  because  of  the 
honor  of  the  Church.  This  being  preserved,  peace  is  preserved  ;  other- 
wise the  right  belongs  even  to  laymen,"  &c.  &:c.  Tertullian  then  pro- 
ceeds to  show  how  the  laymen  ought  to  demean  themselves.  Now  this 
extract  clearly  shows  what  sort  of  a  personage  Tertullian's  Bishop  was. 
He  was  nothing  but  a  Presbyter,  chosen  from  among  the  rest,  and  ap- 
pointed to  preside  over  them,  and  called  the  "highest  Priest,"  and  some- 
times, for  distinction's  sake,  called  "Bishop,"  which  means  simply  over- 
seer, or  superintendent.  And  even  for  this  arrangement,  no  Divine  au- 
thority is  pleaded,  but  only  the  "peace  and  honor  of  the  Church."  Pre- 

*  Apologia,  Cap.  39.  t  De  Corona,  Cap. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    FATHERS.  14 1 

iatists  are  welcome  to  all  the  aid  they  can  derive  from  Tertuliian.  What- 
ever they  may  deem  his  "  Bishops"  to  be,  they  were  evidently  not  Pre- 
lates, for  he  assigns  to  Presbyters  what  are  now  claimed  as  the  especial 
prerogatives  of  Prelates.  He  is  silent  as  to  any  prerogative  which  the 
"  Bishop"  is  claimed  to  have  possessed  in  ordination.  But  if  his  Bi- 
shops were  Prelates,  it  would  have  been  very  natural  for  him  to  speak 
of  their  exclusive  ordaining  power,  (the  great  point)  as  he  dwells  with 
so  much  minuteness  on  their  "  power  of  conferring  baptism." 

Bishop  Otey  makes  a  quotation  from  this  Father  about  his  employing 
the  succession  of  Bishops  in  the  various  Churches  as  an  argument 
against  heretics.  As  it  is  not  our  purpose  to  dwell  in  this  chapter  on 
what  is  termed  the  "  Apostolical  Succession,"  we  shall  pass  this  by,  sim- 
ply remarking,  that  as  Irenaeus  and  Tertuliian  were  nearly  cotemporary, 
and  as  we  have  shown  beyond  denial  that  the  former  represents  the  "suc- 
cession of  Bishops"  and  the  "  succession  of  Presbyters"  to  be  the  same, 
by  the  names  of  persons,  thus  proving  the  identity  of  Presbyter  and  Bi- 
shop, the  latter  undoubtedly  means  the  same. 

VII.  Bishop  Otey's  next  witness  is  "  Origen,  another  famous  Presby- 
ter of  the  same  age,"*  (i.  e.  with  Tertuliian).  Standard  authorities  place 
Origen,  A.  D.  230.  He  testifies,  when  cross-examined,  without  any 
"leading  questions,"  lilie  those  before  him,  making  Presbyters  and  Bishops 
the  same  order.  He  says  :  "  Dost  thou  think  that  they  who  are  honored 
with  the  Priesthood,  and  glory  in  their  Priestly  order,  walk  according  to 
that  order  ?  In  like  manner,  dost  thou  suppose  the  Deacons,  also  walk 
according  to  their  order  1  Whence  then  is  it  that  we  often  hear  reviling 
men  exclaim,  '  What  a  Bishop !'  '  What  a  Presbyter  !'  or,  '  What  a  Dea- 
con! is  this  fellow!'  Do  not  these  things  arise  from  hence,  that  the 
Priest  or  the  Deacon  had  in  something  gone  contrary  to  his  order,  and  had 
done  something  against  the  Priestly,  or  the  Levitical  order  V  f  Here 
the  Bishop  and  Presbyter  are  equally  put  into  the  first  or  "  Priestly  or- 
der," and  the  Deacons  into  the  second  or  order  of  Levites.  Bishops  and 
Presbyters  are  in  this  passage,  therefore,  spoken  of  as  one  and  the  same 
order.  Origen  fancifully  deemed  Solomon's  household  to  typify  the 
Church,  and  says  of  it :  "  Imagine  the  ecclesiastical  order  sitting  in  the 
seats  or  chairs  of  Bishops  and  Presbyters.  She  (referring  to  the  Queen 
of  Sheba's  visit  to  Solomon)  saw  also  the  array  of  servants  standing  to 
wait  in  their  service.  This,  as  it  seems  to  me,  speaks  of  the  order  of 
Deacons,  standing  to  attend  on  Divine  service.":}:  Here  again,  one  and 
the  same  order  of  officers  includes  both  Bishops  and  Presbyters.     Ori- 

*  Discourses,  p.  61.  t  Homilies  on  Num.  jHom.  on  Cant. 

T 


142  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

gen  was  never  any  thing  but  a  Presbyter.  He  says,  addressing  his 
hearers :  "  We  of  the  clerical  order  who  preside  over  you."*  More 
might  be  given  to  show  the  identity,  in  Origen's  esteem,  of  Presbjrters 
and  Bishops  as  regards  their  order  and  functions,  but  this  will  suffice. 

VIII.  Bishop  Otey  next  introduces  "Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  A. 
D.  240."  With  a  flourish  of  trumpets,  he  says  :  "From  the  writings  of 
this  illustrious  Father,  we  might  compile  a  volume  upon  the  subject 
before  us."f  We  have  not  a  doubt  of  it ;  but  we  wonder  if  this  "  vol- 
ume"  would  contain  any  of  the  following  statements  from  the  pen  of  Cy- 
prian ?  Writing  to  the  Presbyters  associated  with  him  in  the  Church  at 
Carthage,  respecting  some  cases  of  discipline,  he  says  :  "  Which  affair 
awaits  the  council  and  sentence  of  rs  all.  I  myself  dare  not  prejudge 
it,  nor  dare  I  alone  determine  a  matter  which  belongs  to  us  in  com- 
mon.":}: Now  Cyprian  is  generally  styled  Bishop  of  Carthage.  But 
was  he  a  Diocesan,  or  only  Pastor  of  a  single  Church  there  ?  If  the 
former,  he  writes  very  unlike  a  modern  Prelate.  If  the  latter,  he  writes 
just  as  a  Presbyterian  Bishop  of  the  present  day  would  do.  He  claims 
no  sole  right  of  jurisdiction,  which  he  certainly  was  entitled  to,  if  he 
had  been  a  Bishop  in  the  prelatical  sense.  The  above,  respects  par- 
ticular cases  ;  but  in  the  following  passages,  written  to  the  same  persons, 
he  speaks  in  the  same  strain  respecting  the  rights  of  general  jurisdic- 
tion :  "  From  the  beginning  of  my  Episcopacy  I  determined  to  do  noth- 
ing of  my  own  accord,  but  only  by  your  council,  and  with  the  consent  of 
the  people.  When  by  the  grace  of  God  I  return  unto  you,  then  we  will, 
as  our  mutual  honor  requires,  confer  in  common  upon  those  things  which 
have  been  done  or  which  still  remain  to  be  done."  Again,  as  showing 
the  essential  identity  of  order  and  function  between  himself  as  Bishop 
and  these  Presbyters  :  "  I  exhort  that  you,  whose  presence  does  not 
expose  you  to  such  peril,  (Cyprian  had  fled  from  persecution,)  would  dis- 
charge my  duty,  act  in  my  place,  and  perform  all  those  things  which  the 
administration  of  the  Church  requires.  "§  The  following  shows  that 
the  "  Bishop"  of  Cyprian's  time  was  the  Pastor  of  a  single  congregation. 
He  was  ordained  over  a  particular  fioch,  in  their  presence,  having  been 
previously  chosen  by  them.  He  says  :  "  This,  therefore,  is  to  be  ob- 
served and  held  as  founded  on  Divine  tradition  and  Apostolic  practice, 
which  is  also  kept  up  with  us,  and  almost  in  aU  the  provinces,  that  in 
order  to  the  right  performance  of  ordination,  the  neighboring  Bishops 

*Hom.  on  Jeremiah.  t  Discourses,  p.  61. 

I  Epistle  26.  f.  Epistle  6. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    FATHERS.  143 

of  the  same  province,  meet  with  that  flock  to  which  the  Bishop 
IS  ORDAINED,  and  that  the  Bishop  be  chosen  in  the  presence  of  the  peo- 
ple, who  know  every  one's  life,  and  are  acquainted  with  their  whole 
conversation."  *  This  is  conclusive.  How  could  the  charge  of  a  Dio- 
eesan  Bishop  or  Prelate,  consisting  of  many  Churches,  scattered  over  a 
large  extent,  meet  together  so  that  their  Bishop  could  be  "  chosen  and 
ordained  in  their  presence  ?"  Is  any  modern  Prelate  ever  ordained  in  the 
presence  of  his  whole  Diocese  ?  All  the  above  passages  show  that 
Cyprian  taught  the  essential  identity  of  Bishop  and  Presbyter  as  to  order 
and  powers,  and  that  they  wei'e  the  Pastors  of  single  congregations. 

In  the  works  of  Cyprian  is  found  a  long  letter  of  Firmilian,  Bishop 
of  Cesarea  in  Cappadocia.  He  was  the  cotemporary  of  Cyprian. — 
He  says  :  "  All  power  and  grace  are  in  the  Church,  in  which  Presbyters 
preside  and  have  the  power  of  baptising,  confirming  and  ordaining." 
This  is  a  most  conclusive  and  unexceptionable  testimony.  We  wonder 
if  the  "Bishop  of  Tennessee"  would  put  it  into  the  "volume"  which  he 
says  he  "  might  compile  from  the  writings  of  this  illustrious  Father  !"  A 
word  about  Firmilian,  showing  the  value  of  this  testimony.  Eusebius 
in  his  Ecclesiastical  History  says  :  "  He  was  very  famous."  Says 
Howel  in  his  Pontificate  :  "  He  made  a  much  more  considerable  figure 
in  the  Church  at  that  time  than  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  Firmilian  was 
President  of  the  Council  of  Antioch,"  &c.  It  should  be  observed  that 
Firmilian  does  not  speak  here  of  insulated  facts,  but  of  the  practice  of 
the  Church.  It  was  the  practice  for  Presbyters  to  preside  over  the 
Church,  to  confirm,  and  to  ordain.  The  practice  was  never  condemned  ; 
the  ordinations  were  not  annulled.  This  single  testimony  of  Firmilian 
is  worth  a  host  of  single  instances  of  ordination  ;  for  this  practice  being 
established  and  continued  in  the  most  celebrated  part  of  the  Christian 
world  at  that  time,  must  have  resulted  in  the  ordination  of  thousands  of 
ministers.  This  declaration  was  written  by  a  Bishop  to  a  Bishop,  and 
is  preserved  among  the  writings  of  the  latter,  without  objection,  or  even 
the  suspicion  of  its  incorrectness.  How  can  Pi'elatists  dispose  of  this  ? 
We  have  now  gone  through,  in  order,  with  all  of  Bishop  Otey's  wit- 
nesses among  the  Fathers,  except  one  which  it  is  not  important  to  notice. 
It  is  taken  from  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century.  We  give  in  a  note 
below,  however,  all  that  he  has  cited  from  that  one.']'     We  have  cross- 

•  Epistle  67. 

f'Optatus  Milevitanu8,  A.  D.  365,  Bp.  of  Mileve,  or  Mela,  in  Africa.  'The 
Church  has  her  several  members,  £igkops.  Presbyters,  Deacons,  and  the  company  of  the 
faithful.'    "■  Youjound  in  the  Church,  Deaconi,  Freshyicrs,  Bishopi:;  you  hdvc  made  them 


144  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

examined  each  witness  cited  by  the  "Bishop  of  Tennessee"  to  prove 
the  existence  in  fact  and  the  alleged  Divine  right  of  Prelacy  in  the 
times  of  these  Fathers ;  and  without  one  word  more  of  comment,  we 
ask  the  reader  to  decide  whether  Bishop  Otey's  declaration  that  "  the 
writers  of  the  first  three  centuries  testify  with  one  voice"  in  favor  of 
the  prelatical  form  of  government  is  worthy  of  a  moment's  consideration 
or  credit. 

We  shall  now  be  pardoned  if  we  detain  the  reader  to  cite  a  few  au- 
thorities of  our  own  fi-om  the  Fathers — or  rather  we  should  say,  a  few 
in  addition ;  for  we  think  the  reader  will  acknowledge  that  we  have 
some  good  ground  to  claim  those  already  examined. 

Immediately  after  the  examination  of  all  the  witnesses  he  has  arrayed, 
Bishop  Otey  says :  "  If  the  time  allowed  we  might  quote  from  Ambrose 
of  Milan  A.  D.  370,  Jerome  A.  D.  380,  St.  Augustine  A.  D.  420,  and 
many  others  both  before  and  after  them — particularly  Eusebius  A.  D. 
320,  the  first  ecclesiastical  historian,  and  who  has  given  us  catalogues 
of  the  Bishops  by  name,  in  the  order  of  their  succession,  in  all  the 
Churches  from  the  Apostles  down  to  his  time — They  all  testify  to  the 
three-fold  constitution  of  the  ministry  and  the  authority  of  Bishops  to 
ORDAIN,  and  to  govern  the  Church.  We  might  quote  from  that  very 
ancient  work,  certainly  existing  in  the  4th  century,  called  the  Apostolic 
canons,  to  prove  the  same  thing.  From  the  decrees  of  Councils,  in  ages 
when  the  faith,  doctrine  and  order  of  the  Gospel  were  confessedly  kept 
pure  by  the  great  body  of  the  faithful.  We  might  travel  along  down  the 
stream  of  time,  through  all  the  adverse  and  prosperous  conditions  of  the 
Church — Avhen  oppressed  and  when  protected — when  maintaining  purity 
of  doctrine  and  practice,  and  when  introducing  and  sanctioning  corrup- 
tions, and  all  along  we  shall  find  an  acciunulation  of  evidence  to  the  fact 
we  have  been  laboring  to  establish,  that  Episcopacy  was  the  settled  order 
and  government  of  the  Church."* 

Oh!  "Time!"  "Time!"  what  wondrous  things  "might"  have  been 
done,  hadst  thou  staid  a  little  in  thy  rapid  flight !  Had  there  been  some 
Joshua  at  hand  to  have  said  as  of  old — "  Sun !  stand  thou  still  upon"  Cum- 
berland ;  "  and  thou,  Moon !  in  the  valley  of  "  the  Tennessee — the  Bishop 
of  that  pleasant  vale  "had  avenged  himself  upon  his  enemies!"  But 
alas  !  alas  !  tempus  fugit! — and  we  may  now  despair  of  ever  seeing  his 

laymen;  ackiiowledge  that  you  have  subverted  souls.''     L.  2.  Con.  Parmenianum." — Dis- 
courses, p.  62     Optatus  makes  one  affirmation  that  Bishop  Otey  has  not  cited.     He  de- 
clares that  "  notie  but  Bishops  used  to  preach,''''  (Disc.  Ch.  5.)     If  Optatn.s  is  right,  is  it 
not  manifest  that  his  Bishops  were  but  the  Pastors  of  single  conprregat  ions  ' 
'■  Diti'oiirsf's,  p   62. 


VIEWS    OE    THE    FATHERS.  145 

prelatical  barque  *'  travel  along  down  the  stream  of  time,"  freighted 
with  "  an  accumulation  of  evidence  to  the  fact"  he  has  "  been  laboring  to 
establish  !" 

But,  to  be  [serious.  Bishop  Otey  in  the  above  extract  declares  that 
Ambrose,  Jerome,  Augustine,  "and  many  others  both  before  and  after 
them,  particularly  Eusebius"  "«ZZ  testify  to  the  three-fold  constitution  of 
the  ministry,  and  the  authority  of  Bishops  to  ordain,  and  to  govern 
the  Church'^ — and  that  he  might  have  cited  these  authorities  to  prove 
all  this,  but  for  the  want  of  "time."  We  have  not  much  leisure,  just 
now,  but  as  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee  "  was  pressed  for  "  time,"  we 
will  examine  some  of  these  Fathers  for  him ;  and  if  we  mistake  not, 
we  shall  find  it  is  quite  unfortunate  for  his  cause  that  he  has  named 
them. 

Before  summoning  these  witnesses  to  the  stand,  a  preliminary  re- 
mark may  be  necessary.  These  Fathers  lived  in  the  fourth  and  follow- 
ing centuries.  It  is  admitted  by  all  who  deny  Prelacy  to  be  founded 
upon  Divine  authority,  that  at  least  as  early  as  the  fourth  century  a  dis- 
tinction between  Bishop  and  Presbyter  had  obtained,  the  former  term 
being  applied  to  a  class  of  Presbyters  chosen  to  preside  over  the  others; 
that  this  distinction  gradually  became  more  and  more  marked,  the  chief 
Presbyter  for  the  sake  of  convenience  and  distinction  being  now  called 
Bishop  ;  that  at  length  some  of  the  functions  which  always  had  belonged 
to  Presbyters,  particularly  that  of  ordination,  were  now  very  generally  ex- 
ercised by  those  called  Bishops ;  and  that  eventually  this  became  the 
settled  policy  of  the  Church,  those  called  Bishops  being  deemed  superior 
in  rank  and  authority  to  Presbyters,  and  having  certain  prerogatives  of 
office  which  could  not  be  exercised  by  the  latter.  This  innovation  pro- 
gressed, and  led  to  more  extended  usurpations,  until  finally,  after  repeated 
contests  between  two  of  the  more  renowned  of  the  Bishops,  (those  of 
Constantinople  and  Rome,)  we  find  the  latter  seated  in  the  alleged 
"  Chair  of  St.  Peter,"  claiming  no  less  than  the  entire  earth  as  his 
Bishopric,  and  asserting  universal  jurisdiction  over  it,  temporal  and 
spiritual.  His  claims  were  stoutly  resisted  for  a  time,  until  at  length  an 
acquiescence  (as  in  the  prerogatives  of  those  first  distinguished  as  Bi- 
shops,) in  his  arrogant  assumptions  followed,  and  at  length  we  find  nearly 
the  whole  Christian  world,  as  well  as  Princes,  Kings,  and  Emperors, 
bowing  before  the  Papacy,  acknowledging  the  Pope's  pretensions,  and 
deeming  it  their  first  duty  to  themselves  and  to  their  God,  to  do  reverence 
to  "Christ's  Yiceccronf  on  Earth." 


146  PRELACY     EXAMINED. 

Now  Prelatists,  who  insist  on  their  system  of  Church  polity  as  founded 
upon  Divine  authority,  deny  that  any  such  change  took  place  as  we  have 
asserted  respecting  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  and  maintain  that  those 
whom  they  now  call  Bishops,  always  had  the  prerogatives  which  they 
claim  for  them,  and  of  course  that  no  change  either  did  or  could  occur. 
As  we  admit  that  in  a  later  age  than  the  fourth  century,  the  whole  system 
of  Prelacy  was  well  nigh  universally  established — and  as  we  deny  that 
it  was  the  original  constitution  of  the  Church, — they  call  upon  us  to  tell 
when  and  how  Prelacy  was  introduced — when  and  how  Bishops  began  to 
exercise  these  prerogatives  which  we  admit  them  to  have  possessed 
during  the  middle  ages.  And  with  the  same  breath  expended  in  enun- 
ciating this  demand,  they  triumphantly  exclaim,  that  we  cannot  cite  the 
least  vestige  of  proof  for  such  a  change — "that  in  all  the  volumi- 
nous records  of  Christian  antiquity,"  as  one  writer  says,  *  "  there  is  not 
so  much  as  one  passing  allusion  to  it" — and  as  Bishop  Otey  says,  that 
the  Fathers  are  "  with  one  voice,"  against  it !  Bishop  Otey  also  pens 
the  following  high-sounding  passage  on  the  point  before  us  :  "  Strange 
indeed  that  so  wonderful  a  change  in  the  form  of  Church  governrtient, 
as  that  denoted  by  Episcopacy  from  parity  should  take  place  and  no 
record  be  made  of  the  fact — no  detail  oj  the  circumstances  by  which  it 
was  effected  be  mentioned  by  so  much  as  one  writer.  Strange  beyond 
the  power  of  explanation,  that  light  and  trivial  matters  about  which 
Christians  then  differed,  should  find  a  place  in  the  annals  of  those  times, 
and  yet  the  wonderful  revolution  from  the  Presbyterial  to  the  Episcopal 
mode  of  government  pass  utterly  unnoticed.  *  *  *  *  Can  we  really 
think  that  such  things  would  form  matters  of  grave  discussion,  and  the 
introduction  of  Episcopacy  pass  unheeded  ?  When  people  make  such 
demands  of  us,  they  must  ask  us  to  lay  aside  the  common  sense  and  un- 
derstanding  of  men."  f 

It  will  take  but  a  very  litttle  "  time"  to  show  whether  upon  this  point 
we  "demand"  the  laying  aside  of  "common  sense  and  understanding," 
or  the  exercise  of  a  little  candor ;  it  being  supposed  that  a  "study  of  twenty 
years"  has  left  no  room  for  an  advancement  in  learning.  We  shall  show 
from  the  very  witnesses  which  Bishop  Otey  names,  but  does  not  cite  for 
want  of  "time,"  the  "how,"  and  the  "when,"  and  the  "wherefore," 
which  are  so  confidently  demanded,  and  boastingly  denied. 

IX.  Ambrose  is  ihe  first  named  by  Bishop  Otey,  and  passed  for  want 
of  "  time."     He  is  generally  placed  A.  D.  370.     In  a  commentary    on 
Paul's  Epistles  found  in  his  works,  (generally  ascribed  to  Ambrose  but 
*  Marshall's  Notes  on  Episcopacy.  t  Discourses,  p.  43. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    FATHERS.  147 

sometimes  to  Hilary,)  he  says :  "  After  Churches  were  established 
in  every  place,  and  officers  appointed,  things  began  to  be  arranged  dif- 
ferently from  what  they  were  in  the  beginning.  ******  fhe  Apostles' 
writings  are  not  altogether  agreeable  to  the  order  of  things  as  now  prac- 
tised  in  the  Church  ;  for  he  calls  Timothy,  who  was  ordained  a  Presbyter 
by  him,  a  Bishop,  and  so  the  first  or  chief  Presbyters  were  called  Bishops; 
and  as  one  departed  the  next  [in  seniority]  succeeded  to  the  office.  But 
because  the  next  in  succession  were  sometimes  found  unworthy  to  hold 
the  chief  place,  tJie  custom  was  changed  by  the  provision  of  a  Council ;  so 
that  not  the  next  in  order,  but  the  next  in  merit,  should  be  made  Bishop 
by  the  judgment  of  a  number  of  the  Presbyters,"  &;c.  Again :  "  In  Egypt, 
even  at  this  day,  the  Presbyters  ordain."  Again  :  "  The  Presbytei  and 
Bishop  had  one  and  the  same  ordination.  The  Bishop  is  the  chief  among 
the  Presbyters."*  In  these  passages  Ambrose  declares,  1.  That  in  his  day 
the  constitution  of  the  Church,  particularly  about  the  order  of  Bishops  and 
Presb}ters  had  changed  fi-oni  the  Scripture  model,  and  that  this  change 
"  began"  some  time  before ;  2.  That  Presbyters,  even  then,  in  some 
places  continued  to  ordain ;  3.  That  the  distinction  between  Bishop  and 
Presbyter  was  of  human  authority ;  and  4.  That  the  Presbyters  in  his 
time  "  made  the  Bishop" — that  is,  gave  him  all  the  ordination  he  had  ! — 
How  unlike  the  making  of  Diocesans  !  And  all  this,  he  says,  was  "  dif- 
ferent" from  Apostolical  practice. 

X.  Next  on  the  list  of  those  passed  for  want  of  "  time,"  Bishop  Otey 
names  "  Jerome,  A.  D.  380."  His  character  as  a  competent  witness  on 
the  point  before  us,  has  the  highest  commendation  from  Episcopalians. 
Mihier  the  historian  says  of  him :  "  He  was,  in  truth,  the  most  learned 
of  the  Roman  Fathers,  and  was  eminent  both  for  genius  and  industry." 
Bingham,  whom  all  High-Churchmen  deem  an  oracle  in  ecclesiastical 
antiquities,  says  :  "St.  Jerome  will  be  allowed  to  speak  the  sense  of  the 
ancients."  Bishop  Hurd  calls  him  "the  ablest  of  the  Fathers,  and  the 
most  esteemed."  Besides  all  these,  he  is  characterised  by  Erasmus,  as 
"without  controversy,  the  most  learned  of  all  Christians,  and  the  prince 
of  divines."  And  Augustine  says,  rather  extravagantly  to  be  sure  :  "  Je. 
rome  knew  every  thing  known  by  man."j- 

Let  him  then  come  forth.  In  his  commentary  on  Titus,  Jerome  says  : 
"  Let  us  diligently  attend  to  the  words  of  the  Apostle,  saying,  '  That  tho^i 
shouldst  ordain  Presbyters  in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee.'    What 

*  Com.  in  Eph.  et  in  1  Tim. 

t"  Nemo  hominum  scibit  quod  Hieronymus  ignorarit." 


148  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

sort  of  Presbyters  ought  to  be  ordained,  he  shows  afterwards  :  '  If  any 
be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,'  &;c  ;  and  then  adds  :  '  For  a 
Bishop  must  be  blameless  as  the  steward  of  God,'  &;c.  A  Presbyter, 
THEREFORE,  IS  THE  SAME  AS  A  BisHOP.  And  before  the  Devil  excited 
men  to  make  parties  in  religion,  and  one  was  led  to  say,  '  I  am  of  Paul, 
and  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,'  the  Churches  were  governed  by  the 
commmon  council  of  the  Presbyters.  But  afterward,  when  every  one 
accounted  those  whom  he  baptized  as  belonging  to  himself  and  not  to 
Christ,  it  was  everywhere  decreed  that  one  chosen  from  among  the  Pres- 
byters should  be  placed  over  the  rest,  that,  the  chief  care  of  the  Church 
being  committed  to  him,  the  seeds  of  division  might  be  taken  away. — 
Should  any  one  think  that  this  is  my  private  opinion,  and  not  the  doctrine 
of  the  Scriptures,  let  him  read  over  again  the  words  of  the  Apostle  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians  :  '  Paul  and  Timotheus,  the  servants  of  Jesus 
Christ  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  which  are  at  Philippi,  with  the 
Bishops  and  Deacons,'  &c.  Philippi  is  a  single  city  of  Macedonia,  and 
certainly  in  one  city  there  could  not  be  several  Bishops  as  they  are  now 
styled ;  but  as  they  at  that  time  called  the  very  same  persons  Bishops 
whom  they  called  Presbyters,  the  Apostle  speaks  of  Bishops  indifferent- 
ly as  being  the  same  as  Presbyters."  Then  Jerome  cites  three  other 
passages  to  show  the  same  thing — that  in  Scripture,  Bishops  and  Pres- 
byters are  the  same,  viz  : — Acts,  20  :  17,  28  ;  and  Heb.  13  :  17  ;  and 
I.  Pet.  5 :  1,  2  ;  and  then  he  proceeds  :  "  These  passages  we  have 
brought  forward  to  show,  that  among  the  ancients  Presbyters  and  Bi- 
shops were  the  very  same.  But  that,  by  little  and  little,  the  roots  of  dis- 
sension might  be  plucked  up,  the  chief  care  was  devolved  upon  one.— 
Therefore,  as  the  Presbyters  know,  that  it  is  by  the  custom  of  the 
Church  that  they  are  to  be  subject  to  him  who  is  their  President,  so  let 
the  Bishops  know  that  they  are  above  Presbyters — rather  by  the  custom 
of  the  Church,  than  by  any  appointment  of  the  Lord,  and  that  the  Church 
ought  to  be  ruled  in  common."  In  his  Epistle  to  Evagrius,  Jerome 
says  the  same  :  "  I  hear  that  a  certain  person  has  broken  out  into  such 
folly  that  he  prefers  Deacons  before  Presbyters,  that  is  before  Bishops  ; 
for  when  the  Apostle  clearly  teaches  that  Presbyters  and  Bishops  were 
the  same  who  can  endure  it,"  &c.  Again  :  "  But  that  one  was  after- 
wards chosen,  who  should  be  placed  over  the  rest,  was  done  as  a  remedy 
against  schism.  *  *  *  *  For  even  at  Alexandria,  fi'om  Mark  the  Evangelist 
until  the  Bishops  Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  [about  A.  D.  250]  the  Presby- 


VIEWS    OF    THE    FATHERS.  149 

ters  always  wei-c  in  the  habit  of  naming  as  Bishop  one  chosen  frcni 
among  themselves,  and  placed  in  a  higher  degree,  in  the  same  manner 
as  if  an  army  should  make  an  Emperor,  or  the  Deacons  should  choose 
from  among  themselves  one  whom  they  knew  to  be  industrious,  and 
should  call  him  Archdeacon.  For  what  can  a  Bishop  do,  [that  is,  nmo 
"do  "  A.  D.  380  to  400,  at  the  time  Jerome  was  writing,]  with  the  ex- 
ception of  ordination,  that  a  Presbyter  may  not  do?" 

We  can  now  afford  to  dismiss  Jerome  from  the  witness  box.  His 
testimony  amounts  to  this:  1.  That  "  Bishops  and  Presbyters  were  the 
SAME  in  the  Apostles'  times ;"  2.  That  the  Church  was  formerly 
{"olim")  governed  by  the  "  common  council  of  the  Presbyters ;"  3. 
That  these  arrangements  continued  until  "  the  Devil  interfered  and 
made  parties  in  religion;"  4.  He  positively  denies  that  there  was  any 
Divine  autliority  for  such  superiority  of  Bishop  above  Presbyter,  as  had 
obtained  in  his  day;  5.  He  declares  that  a  usage  gradually  hecame 
established,  ("by  little  and  Wttle-^paulatim,''^)  in  order  "  to  prevent  di- 
visions," by  which  "  the  chief  care  should  devolve  on  one  ;"  6.  That 
this  elevation  of  one  Presbyter  above  another,  and  naming  him  "  ]5i- 
shop,"  was  a  simple  election  by  the  Presbyters,  {"unum  ex  se  electum;") 
7.  That  this  distinction  between  Bishop  and  Presbyter  was  known  and 
acknowledged,  at  the  time  he  wrote,  to  be  a  mere  human  invention, 
("  as  the  Presbyters  know,"  &c.,  "  so  let  the  Bishops  know,  &c.;)  8. 
And  that  the  only  superiority  over  the  Presbyters  which  these  "  Bi- 
shops" had  obtained,  even  when  he  wrote,  (A.  D.  380  to  400)  respec- 
ted ordination — "  for  what  can  a  Bishop  do  with  the  exception  of  or- 
dination, that  a  Pi'esbyter  may  not  do?" 

These  points  show  concisely  the  sum  of  Jerome's  testimony.  If, 
then,  as  Bingham  says,  "  St.  Jerome  will  be  allowed  to  speak  the 
sense  of  the  ancients,"  we  leave  the  reader  to  judge  what  that  "  sense 
of  the  ancients"  is  ;  and  also  whether  this  witness  would  have  been  of 
any  essential  service  to  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee,"  even  if  he  had 
taken  "  time"  to  examine  him. 

XI.  The  next  witness  which  Bishop  Otey  passes  for  want  of  "time" 
is  "  St.  Augustine,  A.  D.  420."  We  shall  see  that  Augustine  speaks 
very  much  in  the  same  strain  as  Jerome,  with  whom  he  corresponded. 
In  his  Questions  on  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  he  speaks  thus: 
"  The  Apostle  Paul  proves  that  he  tmderstood  a  Presbyter  to  be  a  Bi- 
shop; for  when  he  ordained  Timothy  a  Presbyter,  he  instructs  him 
what  kind  of  a  person  he  ought  to  ordain  a  Bishop.  For  what  is  a 
Bishop  but  the  first  Presbyter,  that  is,  the  highest  Priest'?     In  fine,  he 

U 


150  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

calls  his  co-priests  not  otherwise  than  his  co-rr3sbyters."  Again,  in 
writing  to  Jerome,  who  was  a  'Presbyter,  Augustine,  who  was  a  Bishop, 
expresses  substantially  the  same  sentiment  as  Jerome  does  respecting 
the  change  which  took  place — the  distinction  of  rank  between  Bishop 
and  Presbyter,  after  the  Apostolic  age.  He  says:  "  I  entreat  you  to 
correct  me  faithfully,  whenever  you  see  that  I  need  it;  for  although, 
according  to  the  names  of  honor  which  the  custom  of  the  Church  has 
NOW  hrought  into  use,  the  office  of  a  Eishop  is  gi-eater  than  that  of  a 
Presbyter,  nevertheless,  in  many  things  Augustine  is  inferior  to  Je- 
rome." 

This  testimony  is  explicit,  to  these  points:  1;  Paul  understood  a 
Presbyter  and  Bishop  to  be  the  same  ;  2.  Paul  recognizes  the  right  of  a 
Presbyter  to  ordain  a  BisJiop — an  opinion  openly  at  war  with  the  whole 
scheme  of  Diocesan  Episcopacy ;  3.  The  distinction  in  his  day  be-* 
tween  Bishop  and  Presbyter,  was  not  founded  on  Divine  authority, 
but  was  according  to  "  the  custom  of  the  Church  "  which  obtained  af- 
ter the  Apostolic  age.  All  this  accords  with  what  Jerome  says,  who 
gives  us  "  the  sense  of  the  ancients." 

We  have  now  examined  Ambrose,  Jerome  and  Augustine,  all  of 
whom  Bishop  Otey  omitted  to  examine, for  want  of  "time,"  and  all  of 
whom,  according  to  his  assertion,  would  have  testified  in  favor  of  the 
Divine  right  of  Prelacy,  had  he  brought  them  forth.  We  have  seen 
how.  He  speaks  of  "  many  others  both  before  and  after  them,  partic- 
ularly Eusebius,"  &c.,  who  would  also  have  deposed  in  favor  of  Prela- 
cy, but  for  the  "  time  "  to  examine  them.  Eusebius  will  be  notic- 
ed in  the  chapter  on  the  "  Apostolical  succession."  We  shall  herfe 
cite  some  of  the  *'  many  more  both  before  and  after  "  Ambrose  &  Co., 
and  notice  one  or  two  testimonies  "  from  the  decrees  of  Councils," 
which  Bishop  Otey  also  lays  claim  to,  and  then  bid  adieu  to  the  Fath- 
ers. 

Xn.  Chrysostom,  who  flourished  A.  D.  398,  says  in  his  commen- 
tary on  I  Tim:  "  Between  the  Bishop  and  Presbyter  is  little  or  no 
difference,  and  what  the  Apostle  had  ascribed  to  the  Bishop  the  same 
also  is  proper  to  the  Presbyter ;  for  the  presidency  of  the  Churches  is 
committed  to  Presbyters,  and  the  qualifications  which  the  Apostle  re- 
quires in  a  Bishop  he  requires  in  a  Presbyter  also.  In  ordination  alone 
they  ARE  \^now,  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  century]  above  Presbyters,  and 
this  is  the  only  thing  which  the  Bishops  seem  to  have  more  than  the 
Presbyters  " — just  what  Jerome  has  said,  that  when  he  wrote,  "  ordi- 
nation "  was  the  only  prerogative  which  the  Bishop  had  over  the  Pres- 


VIEWS    OF    THE    FATHERS.  151 

byter.  A  standard  writer  translates  the  latter  part  of  the  above  pas- 
sage thus :  "  Whatever  the  Apostle  said  of  Bishops  agrees  also  to 
Presbyters,  In  ordination  alone  they  have  gone  beyond  the  Presby- 
ters, and  in  this  they  seem  to  have  defrauded  them." 

XIII.  Theodoret,  a.  D.  430,  says  in  his  exposition  of  the  Epistles 
of  Paul :  "  The  Apostles  call  a  Presbyter  a  Bishop,  as  we  showed 
when  we  expounded  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  which  may  also 
be  learned  from  this  place,  (I.  Tim.  3,);  for,  after  the  precepts  proper 
to  Bishops,  he  describes  the  things  that  agree  to  Deacons.  But,  as  I 
said,  op  OLD  t/ic7/  calhd  the  same  men  both  Bishops  and  Presbyters." 

XIV.  Primasius  was  cotomporary  with  Theodoret.  He  says: — 
"  Why  doth  the  Apostle  leap  from  the  duties  of  Bishops  to  the  duties 
of  Deacons,  without  any  mention  of  Presbyters'?  (I.  Tim.  3.)  Be- 
cause Bishops  and  Presbyters  are  the  savie  degreeJ' 

To  give  an  Episcopal  sanction  to  the  correctness  of  our  represen 
tation  of  the  testimony  of  these  Fathers,  we  cite  Bishop  Stilling- 
fleet,  who  says  in  his  Irenicurn  :  "  I  believe  upon  the  strictest  inquiry, 
Medina's  judgment  will  prove  true,  that  Jerome,  Austin,  Ambrose, 
Sedulius,  Primasius,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret  and  Theophylact,  were 
all  of  Aerius'  judgment  as  to  the  identity  of  both  name  and  order  of 
Bishops  and  Presbyters  in  the  primitive  Church." 

Ordination  is  deemed  by  Prelatists  the  grand  and  most  essential 
prerogative  which  their  Bishops  claim.  Besides  the  abundant  testi- 
monies adduced  above  to  show  that  the  Fathers  ascribe  this  to  Pres- 
byters, we  cite  the  following,  from  Fathers  and  Councils,  as  further 
proof  of  their  admitted  right  to  this  single  function. 

XV.  In  the  Epistle  to  Hiero,  ascribed  to  Ignatius,  speaking  of  his 
Presbyters,  he  says:  "  They  baptize,  they  celebrate  the  Eucharist,  they 
impose  hands  in  pennance,  they  ordain."  We  have  already  cited 
the  celebrated  Firmilian,  who  declares  in  his  letter  to  Cyprian  :  "All 
power  and  grace  are  in  the  Church  in  which  Presbyters  preside,  and 
have  the  power  of  baptizing,  imposing  the  hands,  and  ordaining.'^ 

XVI.  From  the  13th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Ancyra,  A-  D,  314, 
it  is  evident  that  Presbyters  both  possessed  and  exercised  the  right 
of  ordaining  in  the  primitive  Church.  The  canon  runs  :  "  It  is  not 
allowed  to  village  (or  rural)  Bishops  to  ordain  Presbyters  or  Deacons  ; 
nor  is  it  allowed  to  city  Presbyters  to  do  this  in  another  parish,  with- 
out THE  PERMISSION  OF  THE  BiSHOP."  What  is  the  inference  from  this  ? 
Plainly,  that  Presbyters  might  ordain  in  another  parish,  (or  "diocese" 
if  you  please,)  provided  they  obtained  the  sanction  or  license  of  the 


J  52  I'RELACY    EXAMINED. 

jiishop,  (who  had  then  risen  above  the  Presbyter ;)  and  also  that 
Presbyters  viigJit  and  did  ordain  in  tlic  diocese  of  their  own  Bishop. 
And  further,  by  this  canon,  the  rural  Bishops,  wee  forbidden  to  ordain 
in  any  case,  and  are  treated  as  inferior  to  city  Presbyters  !  According 
to  many  eminent  Prelatists,  and  among  them  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor, 
even  these  rural  Bishops  had  the  pow^er  de  jure  Divine  to  ordain. 
Therefore,  the  Divine  authority  of  city  Presbyters  to  ordain,  is  plainly 
supposed  in  the  canon,  and  it  is  not  taken  away  by  it,  but  simply 
restricted  to  certain  limits.  The  object  of  the  canon  seems  to  have 
been  to  guard  against  some  irregularities  which  had  occured  ;  and  as 
this  evidence  about  the  powers  of  Presbyters  is  only  incidental,  it  is 
of  the  most  valuable  kind.  Although  Prelacy  was  now  beginning  to 
push  its  pretensions  with  more  and  more  boldness,  and  as  appears 
in  the  "decrees  of  this  Council  "  had  deprived  some  of  the  power  of 
ordaining  whom  Bishop  Taylor  admits  to  have  possessed  it  from 
Christ,  yet  even  now  the  more  influential  city  Presbyters  were  still 
permitted  to  exercise  this  right. 

XVII.  The  celebrated  Council  op  Nice,  A.  D.  325,  in  their 
Epistle  to  the  Church  of  Alexandria  and  other  Churches  of  Egypt, 
while  they  say  a  Bishop  was  to  be  constituted  by  Bishops,  speak  of 
Presbyters  as  still  ordaining  Presbyters.  They  are  speaking  of  those 
Presbytei's  who  had  not  made  a  schism  in  connection  with  Meletius. 
The  Epistle  says  :  "  But  as  for  those  who  by  the  grace  of  God,  and 
your  prayers,  have  been  found  in  no  schism,  but  have  ever  remained 
immaculate  in  the  Catholic  Church,  it  pleased  the  holy  Synod  that 
they  should  have  power  to  ordain,  and  give  over  the  names  of  such 
as  were  worthy  to  be  the  clergy ;  and  in  short,  to  do  all  things 
accoi'ding  to  the  ecclesiastical  law  and  sanction."  All  the  clergy  who 
had  been  engaged  in  this  division,  the  Council  deprived  of  the  power 
of  conferring  orders  ;  but  to  the  remaining  clergy  of  Alexandra  and 
the  other  Churches   of  Egypt,  they  confrmed  the  authority  to  ordain. 

By  the  4th  canon  of  this  Council,  three  Bishops  were  required  for 
the  ordination  of  a  Bishop,  and  yet  Pelagius  a  Bishop  of  Eome,  wavS 
ordained  only  by  two  Bishops,  and  one  Presbyter  of  the  name  of 
Andrew.  This  was  past  the  middle  of,  the  sixth  century,  A.  D.  558. 
Now  why  did  Andrev/  act  as  an  ordainer  on  this  occasion,  unless  it  was 
even  then  conceded  that  Presbyters  had  power,  de  jure  Divino,  to 
ordain  '?  Tlie  Church  evidently  did  not  then  believe  that  two  persons 
could  "transmit  the  succession,"  else  they  would  never  have  em- 
ployed this  Presbyter  to  act  the  part  of  mockery.  Either,  then,  Andrew 


VIEWS    OF    THE    FATHERS.  153 

could  and  did  truly  ordain,  or  according  to  the  canons  then  in  vogue, 
Pelagius  was  not  validly  ordained,  and  the  immaculate  succession 
w^as  broken  ! 

XVIII.  In  the  23d  canon  of  the  Council  op  Carthage,  held  as  is 
generally  supposed,  A.  D.  398,  it  is  decreed  that  "  a  Bishop  shall  hear 
the  cause  of  no  one  tcitJiout  the  presence  of  his  clergy,  otherwise,  the  sen- 
tence of  the  Bishop  shall  be  null,  if  it  be  not  confirmed  by  the 
presence  of  the  clergy."  This  looks  very  unlike  modem  Diocesan 
Episcopacy,  which  affirms  that  "  Bishops  are  the  rulers  of  the  flock  !" 
Prelacy  had  not  yet  arrived  at  maturity,  but  its  childhood  was  very 
proniising  when  this  Council  sat.  The  22d  canon  of  this  same  Council 
is  still  more  decisive  on  the  point  before  vis.  It  demands  "  that  a 
Bishop  SHALL  NOT  ORDAIN  cUrgymenwithout the  council  of  his  clergy;^* 
and  further,  "  that  all  the  Presbyters  present  should  hold  their  hands 
upon  the  head  of  him  who  was  ordained  near  to  the  hand  of  the  Bishop." 
But  it  may  be  said  that  the  Presbyters  in  this  case  were  to  impose 
hands  with  the  Bishop  not  to  "  convey  authority,"  but  merely  to 
"  assent"  to  it.  It  is  plain,  however,  from  the  usages  of  that  day, 
that  Presbytei's  were  regarded  as  conveying  authority  as  really  as  the 
Bishop.  Indeed,  the  same  reasoning  which  may  be  employed  to 
prove  that  Presbyters  could  not  ordain  Presbyters,  and  did  not  act  an 
authoritative  part,  may  also  be  brought  to  bear  against  the  supposed 
prerogatives  of  Prelates  ;  for  it  may  be  shown  in  the  same  manner 
that  Bishops  could  not  ordain  Bishops,  and  did  not  really  convey  any 
authority.  It  is  known  that  the  Meti'opolitan  at  length  claimed  the 
right  of  presiding  at  the  ordination  of  all  the  Bishops  of  his  province, 
and  that  such  ordinations,  performed  without  his  sanction  (as  then 
maintained,)  would  have  been  deemed  invalid.  Now  in  the  ordina- 
tion of  Presbyters,  the  Prelate  was  assisted  by  Presbyters ;  and  in 
the  ordination  of  Prelates  the  Metropolitan  was  assisted  by  Prelates. 
If  therefore,  a  council  of  Presbyters,  without  a  Prelate  could  not 
ordain  a  Presbyter,  neither  could  a  whole  province  of  Prelates,  with- 
out a  Metropolitan,  oi'dain  a  Prelate.  The  position  therefoi'e,  that  the 
Presbyters  alluded  to  by  the  Council  of  Caithage,  were  not  deemed 
to  convey  authority  in  ordination,    is  altogether  untenable.* 

We  now  bid  farewell  to  the  Fathers  ;  and  we  ask  the  reader  to 
determine  whether  we  have  not,  from  the  eighteen  testimonies  we  have 
examined,  established  the  following  conclusions  : 

•  For  an  additional  argument  in  favor  of  the  parochial  character  of  primitivik 
Bishops,  drawn  from  the  fact  that  they  were  thickly  jdaiUed  or  located,  see  Appendix  B. 


154  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

1.  That  there  is  no  undoubted  and  unquestionable  evidence  that  any 
owe  of  the  Fathers  of  Bishop  Otey's  "first  three  centuries,"  or  any 
Council  held  during  that  time,  ever  maintained  the  modem  prelatical 
doctrine  of  the  Divine  right  of  Bishops  alone  as  distinct  from  Pres- 
byters to  be  successors  of  the  Aspostles,  and  as  such  to  ordain  and 
rule  over  Pastors  and  people. 

2.  That  in  the  writings  of  the  earlier  Fathers,  no  distinction  appears 
between  the  office  of  Presbyter  and  Bishop. 

3.  That  in  the  following  centuries  a  custom  gradually  ( paulatim) 
became  established,  by  which  one  Presbyter  was  placed  over  the 
others,  and  the  title  Bishop,  which  had  hitherto  been  held  by  the  Pres- 
byters in  common,  was  appropriated  to  him  alone.  Witnesses  :  Am- 
brose, Jerome,  Augustine. 

4.  That  the  reason  assigned  for  this  arrangement  was  not  Divine 
authority,  but  the  prevention  of  schism,  the  honor,  peace,  and  unity 
of  the  Church.  Witnesses  :  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Ambrose,  Jerome, 
Augustine. 

5.  That  Presbyters  presided  over  the  Church,  and  that  even  after  a 
chief  Presbyter  had  been  appointed  and  called  Bishop,  Presbyters 
"ruled  in  common,"  with  him.  Witnesses:  Ignatius,  Tertullian, 
Origen,  Cyprian,  Firmilian,  Jerome. 

6.  That  Presbyters,  bot/i  in  fact,   and  by  Divine  right,  ordained. 
Witnesses  :    Among  many  others,  Firmilian,  Ambrose,  Jerome,  Igna- 
tius' Epistle  to  Hiero,  Hilary,  Council  of  Ancyra,  Council  of  Nice, 
Council   of  Carthage,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 

7.  That  Presbytcs  are  the  successors  of  the  Apostles  in  all  the  ordi- 
nary functions  of  their  ministry,  as  preaching,  ruling,  ordaining,  &c. 
Witnesses  :  Ignatius,  Irenaeus,  Jerome,  &c.,  &c. 

We  now  leave  the  candid  and  unprejudiced  reader  to  judge  between 
us  and  our  opponents.  They  ever  and  anon  affirm  that  "  the  Fathers 
testify  with  one  voice" — Yes,  and  the  "  decrees  of  Councils"  too — 
to  the  existence  in  fact,  and  to  the  Divine  authority,  of  Prelacy,  from 
the  Aspotolic  age  downwards.  We  meet  these  assertions  with  a  flat 
denial,  and  produce  the  evidence  to  support  it.  They  also  declare, 
that  no  change  from  the  scriptural  polity  of  the  Church,  such  as 
we  allege,  has  ever  taken  place — and  also,  as  for  example  Bishop  Otey, 
that  "  no  record  of  the  fact"  of  such  change,  "  no  detail  of  the 
circumstances  by  which  it  was  affected"  has  been  "  mentioned  by 
so  much  as  one  writer."  We  also  deny  this,  and  cite  the  most 
renowned  Fathers  of  the  Church,  such  as  high  Prelatists  declare  "will 


VIEWS    OP   THE    FATHERS.  155 

be  allowed  to  speak  the  sense  of  the  ancients,"  and  from  these  unim- 
peachable witnesses  we  show  the  hoio,  the  when,  and  the  whercforf: 
of  this  change,  in  a  manner  so  explicit,  that  "  he  that  runneth  may 
read."  We  now  ask,  in  view  of  all  this,  if  these  high  sounding  words 
of  the  "Bishop  of  Tennessee"  about  "one  voice,"  and  "no  record  of 
change,"  be  not  all  vapoi'ing  and  vain  boasting,  or — something  worse  ! 
We  close  with  two  testimonies  in  point  which  our  enemies  will  not 
scorn.  At  the  time  of  the  treaty  of  the  Isle  of  Wight,  in  a  conversa- 
tion between  Archbishop  Usher  and  King  Charles  I.  on  the  subject  of 
ordination,  His  Majesty  asked  the  Prelate  "  whether  he  found  in  all  an- 
tiquity that  Presbyters  alone  ordained  any,"  to  which  His  Grace  repli- 
ed, "  yes,  and  that  he  could  show  His  Majesty  more  than  that,  even 
that  Presbyters  alone  had  successively  ordained  BishopsJ^  This  conver- 
sation is  admitted  in  Bishop  Hoadly's  reply  to  Calamy.  Bishop  Croft, 
who  upheld  Prelacy  as  a  wise  human  institution,  but  wrote  against 
the  Divine  right  of  it  as  pushed  to  the  excluison  of  all  other  forms  of 
Church  polity,  says  in  his  "  Naked  Truth,"  when  speaking  of  the  ar- 
guments brought  forward  by  de  jure  Divine  Prelates  :  ^'■Ihope  my  read- 
er will  now  see  what  weak  proofs  are  brought  for  this  distinction  and  su- 
periority of  order.  No  Scripture;  no  primitive  general  Council;  no  gen- 
eral consent  of  primitive  Doctors  and  Fathers;  no — not  one  primitive 
Father  of  note,  speaking  particularly  and  home  to  their  purpose.'^ 


CHAPTER  V. 
THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION." 

The  sliock  Divine,  of  long  concatenation 

jFrom  Peter'' s  chair,  loith  wondrous  demonstration 

Taught,  by  tradition  of  'the  Church'  dogmatical; 

Successio7i''s  chain,  with  links  all  counted  tactical, 

JFrcm  where,  (Vis  said,)  the  Great  Apostle  sat  witlial. 
And  filled  with  full  authority,  his  throne  of  inspiration: 

Thing  wonderful — without  aparallel 
In  all  creation'' s  universe  beside.' 

To  be  believed — because  impossible — 

Precious,  unique,  the  lineage,  the  spell, 

That  does  more  than  a  proper  miracle; 

Yet  shovis  so  simple — what  it  does  not  hide! — HexagoKiUS. 

We  have  already  occupied  so  much  space  ^^pon  the  other  branches 
of  this  controversy,  that  we  feel  inclined  to  draw  our  review  to  a  close; 
and  we  should  at  once  do  so,  were  not  the  subject  before  us  of  vital  im- 
portance, in  the  esteem  of  an  opponents  at  least.  They,  evidently, 
deem  the  so-called  "  Apostolical  Succession"  a  topic  of  the  very  last 
consequence ;  for,  as  they  reason,  admitting  that  we  have  proved  that 
Presbyters  have  a  Divine  right  to  ordain,  and  to  exercise  all  other  min- 
isterial functions,  still,  they  say,  even  in  that  case,  only  those  Presby- 
ters possess  the  right  who  are  actually  connected  with  the  Apostles 
by  means  of  ordination  by  other  Presbyters  without  any  break  or  in- 
terruption. Unless  each  individual  Presbyter  is  thus  united  to  the 
Apostles,  by 

"  Succession's  chain,  with  links  all  counted  tactical," 
his  authority  is  nothing — he  is  but  a  layman ;  and  whether  he  be  a 

*As  a  lucid  and  satisfactory  discourse  on  "  the  Apostolical  Succession,"  by  Rev.  James 
Purviance,  has  recently  been  published  and  circulated  in  this  region,  it  would  seem  to  be 
unnecessary  to  dwell  upon  this  branch  of  the  general  subject.  But  as  we  have  under- 
taken to  review  Bishop  Otey's  three  discourses,  our  work  would  not  be  complete  should 
we  pass  this  topic  by  altogether. 


THE    APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  157 

Presbyter  within  the  pale  of  Prelacy,  or  numbered  with  any  other 
tribe  of  Israel,  it  matters  not.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  our  opponents 
respecting  the  importance  and  necessity  of  the  succession.  The  doc- 
trine applies  to  themselves  as  regards  tracing  it  in  the  line  of  their 
Prelates,  whom  alone  they  declare  to  possess  the  ordaining  power ; 
ani  they  apply  it  to  us  as  regards  tracing  it  in  the  line  of  Presby- 
ters, whom  we  claim  to  be  ordainers  :  that  is,  they  insist  that  such  a 
tactual  succession  is  necessary,  from  the  Apostles  to  the  ministers  of  the 
present  day,  (whether  by  Prelates  or  Presbyters,)  or  the  ministry  is 

LOST  FOREVER nay,  THE  CHURCH  TOO  IS  GONE  !  * 

To  illustrate  this  :  Supposing  the  Apostles  and  all  true  ministers 
who  have  succeeded  them  to  be  now  upon  earth,  and  all  of  them  who 
have  taken  a  part  in  perpetuating  the  ministry  by  ordination  to  be  en- 
gaged at  this  moment  in  the  very  act  of  performing  all  the  ordinations 
that  have  ever  occurred  from  that  day  to  this — then,  (on  the  ground 
that  the  succession  comes  through  Presbyters,)  there  must  be  an  actu- 
al tactual  contact  of  hands  and  heads  from  the  Apostles  to  those  stand- 
ing next  to  them,  and  from  those  to  the  next,  and  so  on  to  each  and 
every  Presbyter  of  the  vast  number ;  and  on  the  ground  that  the  suc- 
cession comes  through  Prelates,  there  must  be  this  same  contact  of 
hands  and  heads  from  the  Apostles  on  to  each  and  every  Prelate.  This 
may  illustrate  the  simple  point  as  to  what  is  meant  by  an  "  uninterrupt- 
ed succession."  The  contact  must  be  so  complete,  in  either  line,  that 
should  an  electric  shock  be  given  to  the  Apostles  it  might  be  instantly 
felt  by  every  one  in  the  multitudinous  host.  There  must  be  no  non- 
conductors here — (we  might  imagine  that  some  of  Rome's  "  monsters 
of  iniquity"  would  be  such) — no  suspension  of  the  touch  for  an  instant 
— but 

"  The  shock  Divine,  of  long  concatenation 
From  Peter's  chair," 

or  from  some  of  the  other  Apostles,  must  be  felt  by  every  real  minis- 
ter of  God,  or  his  commission  is  not  worth  a  farthing  ! 

But  further.  Our  opponents  not  only  maintain  that  such  a  connec- 
tion with  the  Apostles  is  necessary  to  the  continuance  and  present  ex- 
istence of  the  ministry,  but  that  it  is  incumbent  on  each  and  all  who 

*Dr-  Chandler  says:  "  If  the  succession  be  once  broken,  and  the  power  of  ordination 
once  lost,  not  all  the  men  on  earth,  not  all  the  angels  in  Heaven,  without  an  immediate 
commission  trom  Christ,  can  restore  it."  Bishop  McCoskry,  of  Michigan,  in  a  sermon  he 
has  published,  advocating  the  doctrine  of  unbroken  prelatical  succession,  says :  "  If  the 
positions  advanced  cannot  be  sustained,  Christ  has  left  no  Church  on  the  earth,  and  no 
ministry  of  reconciliation." 

V 


158  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

now  claim  to  be  ministers,  to  know  and  to  be  able  to  sJiow  that  they  are 
in  such  connection;  or,  (to  give  the  "  thing  wonderful "  the  utmost  fair 
play,)  if  any  minister  is  destitute  of  the  ability  to  make  the  requisite 
research  to  prove  his  individual  connection,  or  pushed  like  the  "Bishop 
of  Tennessee  "  for  want  of  "  time,"  then  he  must  fee  able  to  prove 
his  authority  by  others  who  have  "  time  "  and  ability,  while  he,  (poor 
soul!)  must  be  content  to  take  it  upon  trust :  either  way,  his  eclesiasti- 
cal  standing  must  he  proved  in  this  manner,  or  he  has  no  right  to  preach 
the  gospel.  This  is  Bishop  Otey's  plan  of  at  present  certifying  minis- 
terial orders.*  This  point  is  essentially  distinct  from  the  other.  Rea- 
soning a  priori,  we  might  say  that  an  uninterrupted  succession  in  eith- 
er line  is  possihle,  though  no  one  might  be  able  to  prove  that  it  is  real. 
But  our  opponents  insist  not  only  upon  the  necessity  of  its  existence 
in  fact  in  order  to  the  present  existence  of  the  ministry,  but  they  main- 
tain that  each  miAister  of  the  gospel  must  be  able  to  show  his  own  case 
to  he  an  illustration  of  the  fact;  and  as  for  themselves,  they  unhesitat- 
ingly declare  that  they  can  positively  prove  their  connection  with  the 
Apostles  through  their  Prelates,  without  a  break  or  a  flaw  in  a  solitary 
link  of  the  wondrous  chain.t 

"Bishop  Otey  asks:  "  How  is  the  power  of  ordination  proved?  We  answer  that  ori- 
ginally the  authority  to  act  in  the  name  of  Clirist,  in  the  appointments  of  religion  was 
certified  to  the  world  by  miracles But  as  these  proofs  of  the  minis- 
terial power  are  no  longer  vouchsafed— as  miracles  have  long  since  ceased,  how  shall  the 
authority  of  the  christian  ministry  be  certified  and  proven,  in  any  other  way,  than  by  show- 
ing its  transmission  from  the  original  root  "  Again  he  says:  "  If  the  authority  of  the 
ministry  cannot  now  be  certified  by  miracles,  it  follows  inevitably  that  this  ministry  can 
be  known  and  verified  only  as  proof  shall  be  exhibited  that  the  authority  originally  del- 
egated by  Christ  to  his  Apostles,  has  been  transmitted  in  an  uninterrupted  suceession  to 
those  who  at  this  day  claim  to  exercise  office  m  the  Christian  Church.  This  is  what  is 
termed  the  Apostolic  succession."  He  also  puts  ihe  following  questions  to  "  dissenters," 
by  which  respectful  term  he  means  those  who  do  not  belong  to  "  the  Church  " — "We 
ask,  whence  your  authority  to  act  as  ministers  of  religion?  Can  you  snow  that  it  is  de- 
rived from  Christ  and  his  Apostles?  If  this  can  be  shown,  there  is  an  end,  at  once,  on 
our  part,  of  all  objection  to  the  orders  of  dissenters,  and  we  are  more  than  ready  to  re- 
ceive their  ministrations." — Discourses,  pp.  34,  35,  37.  All  this  clearly  shows,  that,  ac- 
cording to  Bishop  Otey,  no  one  can  now  be  deemed  a  minister,  "  only  as  proof  shall  be 
exhibited,'^  that  he  is  tactually  connected  with  the  Apostles.  We  shall  see  whether  this 
test  will  spare  aprelatical  ministry. 

tDr.  Hook,  of  England,  in  his  sermons  on  the  Church  and  the  establishment,  says  : 
"  The  Prelates  who  at  this  present  time  rule  the  churches  of  these  realms,  were  validly 
ordained  by  others,  who,  by  means  of  an  tinbroken  spiritual  descent  of  ordination, 
derived  their  mission  from  the  Apostles  and  from  our  Lord.  This  continued  descent  is 
evident  to  every  one  who  chooses  to  mvestigate  it.  There  is  not  a  Bishop,  Priest  or  Dea- 
con among  us,  who  cannot,  if  he  please,  trace  his  own  spiritual  descent  from  St.  Peter 
or  St.  Paul."  This  is  but  a  specimen  of  the  confidence  with  which  Prelatists  on  both 
sides  of  the  Atlantic  declare  their  ability  to  trace  their  orders. 


THE  APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION.  159 

We  join  issue  with  thera  on  all  these  points,  and  unhesitatingly 
•deny  and  repudiate  the  whole.  We  diexij, first,  that  there  is  any  proof 
of  the  necessity  of  such  personal,  tactual  sucession,  (by  Prelates  or 
Presbyters,  or  by  any  other  class,)  in  order  to  the  perpetuation  of  the 
ministry  ;  secondly,  if  not,  then  of  course  it  follows  that  it  is  not 
necessary  for  any  minister  to  show  that  he  is  thus  spiritually  descended, 
in  order  to  prove  his  ministerial  authority  ;  and  thirdly,  we  deny  that 
any  member  of  the  whole  prelatical  ministiy,  "Bishop,  Priest,  or 
Deacon,"  is  able  to  "trace  his  own  spiritual  descent  from  St.  Peter  or 
St.  Paul,"  Dr.  Hook's  assertion  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  And 
we  go  further  on  this  point,  and  pledge  ourselves  to  prove,  (though 
by  no  means  bound  to  do  it,)  that  there  is  no  certainty  that  any  Pre- 
late in  Christendom  is  connected  with  the  Apostles  "by  means  of  an 
unbroken  spiritual  descent  of  ordination,"  as  Dr.  Hook  terms  it  ; 
and  if  this  be  not  deemed  sufficient,  we  will  take  one  step  more,  and 
come  under  a  pledge  to  prove  that  this  alleged  prelatical  succession 
has  positively  no  existence  except  in  men's  imaginations — has  been 
sundered  at  divers  times,  and  is  a  puerile  non-entity. 

Let  us  examine  each  of  these  points  in  order.  First,  Is  such  a 
personal  succession,  in  any  line  or  order  of  men,  necessary  to  the 
perpetuation  of  the  ministry  1  Where  is  the  proof  of  such  necessity 
to  be  found  ?  We  search  for  it  in  vain  in  the  Word  of  God.  Bishop 
Otey  brings  forward  a  clause  in  the  original  ministerial  commission — 
"Lo  !  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world" —  as 
teaching  both  the  necessity  and  the  reality  of  it ;  but  this  clause 
proves  neither  the  one  nor  the  other.  It  asserts  directly  that  Christ 
would  be  ever  with  his  ministers,  and  impliedly  of  course  that  there 
always  would  be  a  ministry  ;  and  this  is  all.  We  may  safely  chal- 
lenge the  production  of  any  Scripture  to  show  this  necessity.  There 
is  not  one  sitch  specific  passage  in  Holy  Writ.  But  on  the  other  hand, 
there  are  some  facts  which  go  far  to  prove  that  no  such  necessity 
exists  ;  for  example,  the  facts  connected  with  the  Aaronic  Priesthood. 
This  was  intended  to  typify  the  Priesthood  of  Christ.  As  much 
regularity  and  continuity,  therefore,  was  given  to  it,  as  human  things 
would  allow.  Hence  a  personal  succession,  in  one  family,  was  the 
general  principle  of  the  high  Priesthood.  Prelatists  sometimes  bring 
this  forward,  as  showing  the  necessity  of  a  personal  succession  \n  the 
Christian  Ministry.  But  it  does  not  show  this,  for  the  Priesthood  of 
Aaron  typifies  the  Priesthood  of  Christ,  and  nothing  more.  Suppose, 
liowevcr,  wc  grant,  for  the  argument's  sake,   that  the  Priesthood  of 


160  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

Aaron  does  typify  the  Christian  ministry  in  the  one  particular  of  shovv- 
i  ng  that  a  personal  succession  in  the  latter  was  intended ;  then  it 
would  follow  that  an  uninterrupted  succession  in  the  Christian  minis- 
try is  NOT  necessary  to  its  continuance,  for  the  succession  of  the  high 
Priesthood  of  Aaron  was  hroken  and  frequently  interrupted  hy  men  ; 
and  yet,  those  who  ministered  in  the  office  afterward,  though  not  of 
the  succession,  were  not  repudiated  on  that  account,  either  by  Christ 
or  his  Apostles.*  As,  therefore,  in  the  Priesthood  of  Aaron,  where 
a  personal  succession  for  wise  purposes  was  provided  for,  frequent 
interruptions  of  it  did  not  invalidate  or  destroy  the  Priesthood,  we 
may  fairly  infer  that  no  necessity  for  unbroken  continuity  in  the 
ministry  under  the  Christian  dispensation  is  required  in  order  to  its 
perpetuation.     Hence  it  is  plainly  a  gratuitous  assumption  to  allege 

*  This  is  not  only  proved  by  Josephus,  the  Jewish  historian,  but  is  admitted  by  the 
Fathers,  and  by  some  distinguished  Prelatists  Let  Dr.  Hammond,  of  the  Church  of 
England,  be  our  witness.  He  says:  "At  this  time,  the  land  being  under  the  Roman 
Emperor,  the  succession  of  the  High  Friesis  was  now  changed,  \he  one  lineal  descen- 
dant in  the  family  of  Aaron,  which  was  to  continue  for  life,  being  not  permilted  to  suc- 
ceed, but  some  other,  whom  he  pleased,  named  to  that  office  hy  the  Roman  Frocurator 
every  year,  or  renewed  as  often  as  he  pleased.  To  which  purpose  is  that  of  Theophylact : 
'Those  who  were  at  that  time  High  Priests  of  the  Jews,  invaded  that  dignity,  bought  it, 
and  so  destroytd  the  law,  which  prescribed  a  succession  in  the  family  of  Aaron.'  "It  is 
manifest,"  continues  Dr.  Hammond,  "that  at  this  time  tlie  Roman  Praefect  did,  ad 
libitum,  when  he  would,  and  that  sometimes  once  a  year,  put  in  whom  he  pleased  into 
the  Pontificate,  to  officiate  in  Aaron^s  office,  instead  of  the  lineal  descendant  from  him. 
And  that  is  it  of  which  Josephus  so  frequently  makes  mention.  After  the  race  of  the 
Assamonaei,  it  seems  Jesus  the  son  of  Phoebus  was  put  in  ;  then  he  being  put  out,  Simon 
is  put  in  his  stead ;  this  Simon  put  out,  and  Matthias  in  his  stead.  Joseph.  Antiq.  I.  17, 
c.  6."  And  Dr.  Hammond  goes  on  to  give  from  Josephus  no  less  than  twenty-five  in- 
lances  in  the  course  of  a  few  years,  of  changes  and  interruptions  in  the  succession  of 
the  high  priesthood !  And  yet  the  incumbents  were  not  repudiated  by  our  Lord  or  by  his 
Apostles,  as  not  being  true  Priests,  because  they  were  not  of  the  lineal  succession  in  the 
family  of  Aaron.  Theophylact,  one  of  Biihoj)  Otey's  witnesses  among  the  Fathers, 
says  that  the  law  of  succession  was  utterly  destroyed  by  these  confusions.  liad  the  wisdom 
of  modern  successionists  then  prevailed,  it  would  have  been  declared  that  the  Church  of 
God  was  then  nullified,  defunct,  gone  forever  '.  In  addition  to  the  above,  even  the  Scrip- 
tures seem  to  leach  that  the  succession  was  interrupted.  Thus  it  is  said,  II  Chron.  15:  3, 
"Now/or  a  long  season,  Israel  hath  been  without  the  true  God  and  without  a  teaching 
priestanA  without  law."  It  is  also  the  opinion  of  many  learned  men,  vide  Vitringa  de 
Synagogae,  lib.  1,  par.  2,  cap.  6.,  that  there  was  no  High  Priest  in  Israel  from  Phineas 
the  son  of  Eleazar  unto  Eli,  an  interval  of  at  least  two  hundred  years  !  Now,  in  opposi- 
tion to  all  this  testimony,  the  profoundly  learned  "Bishop  of  Tennessee,"  says  :  "JVo 
cne  questions  the  succession  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  which  we  all  know  was  trans- 
mitted by  carnal  descent,  etc."  Discourses,  p.  65.  In  answer  to  this  we  have  only  to 
say,  let  him  who  so  preaches  and  writes,  stand  publicly  rebuked  by  Josephus,  a  historian 
whom  every  schoolboy  reads,  by  Father  Theophylact,  his  own  wiincis  on  other  points, 
by  learned  Prelatists,  and  other  commentators;  and  by  his  own  Bible .' 


THE  APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION.  161 

such  necessity.  It  is  made  without  any  fair  scriptural  warrant,  and 
against  all  the  facts  and  analogies  which  do  bear  upon  the  question. 
Secondly,  Is  it  necessary  that  every  one  claiming  to  be  a  minister  of 
the  Gospel  should  be  able  to  sJiow  that  he  is,  by  personal  succession, 
connected  with  the  Apostles,  in  order  to  prove  his  ministerial  authori- 
tyl  This  question  has  been  answered  by  the  foregoing  ;  for  surely, 
if  an  uninteiTupted  succession  be  not  necessary  to  the  continuance  of 
the  ministry,  it  is  not  necessary  for  any  one  to  show  that  he  is  in  the 
line  of  an  uninterrupted  succession,  in  order  to  prove  that  he  is  an  au- 
thorized minister.  For  ourselves,  therefore,  we  have  no  wish,  and 
have  no  motive,  to  enquire  wether  we  are  connected  with  the  Apostles 
by  means  of  Dr.  Hook's  "unbroken  spiritual  descent  of  ordination." 
It  would  be  entirely  a  work  of  supererogation.  If  we  could  prove 
it  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  whole  world,  we  should  gain  nothing  by 
it:  we  should  not,  thereby,  have  proved  ourselves  to  be  Christ's  minis- 
ters, for  this  is  not  the  test,  with  Him,  of  ministerial  standing.  He 
has  not  made  it  such  in  his  Word,  but  has  established  other  and  higher 
and  holier  marks  of  his  calling,  appointment,  and  approval  of  his  am- 
bassadors. Mere  ordination,  even  by  an  Apostle  himself,  would  not 
make  a  man  a  minister  whom  Christ  would  own,  unless  he  had  those 
moral  and  spiritual  endowments  which  would  show  that  he  wore  the 
image  and  was  imbued  with  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  If  Prelatists  deny 
this,  they  are  "wise  above  what  is  written:"  "  If  any  man  have  not 
the  Spirit  of  Christ  he  is  none  of  his."*  We  can  have  no  possible  in- 
terest, therefore,  in  the  whole  matter  of  this  "  thing  wonderful  " — this 
high-sounding,  so-called  " Apostolical  succession" — but  simply  to  in- 
quire, whether  indeed  it  be  truth  or  fiction  that  the  Prelates  of  these 
latter  days,  are  really  connected  with  the  Apostles  "  by  means  of  an 
unbroken  spiritual  descent  of  ordination" — by 

"  Succession's  chain,  witli  links  all  counted  tactical" — 
and  by  virtue  of  which,  they  are  especially  empowered  by  Heaven  to 
give  "  the  shock  Divine  "  to  whom  they  will.  And  we  should  have  no 
interest  in  inquiring  even  into  this,  were  it  not  that  such  high  preten- 
sions are  made  the  basis  of  gi'ave  anathemas  by  which  all  Christians 
(not  of  the  Prelacy)  are  calmly  handed  over  to  "  uncovenanted  mer- 
cies "  by  some,  and  to  certain  and  irretrievable  damnation  by  others  ! 
These  being  the  serious  consequences,  we  hope  we  shall  not  be  held 
guilty  of  trespass,  if  we  examine  the  premises  upon  which  they  are 
founded.     We  come  then  to  inquire, 

"Romans,  8:  9. 


162  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

Thirdly,  Is  there  sufficient  evidence  of  the  reality  of  the  alleged 
Prelatico-Apostolical  succession  to  make  it  an  article  of  rational  be- 
lief] 

It  is  necessary  to  ascertain  at  the  outset  precisely  what  is  affirmed 
on  this  point  by  our  opponents.  In  what  does  this  pretended  succes- 
sion consist?  The  answer  to  this  question  brings  us  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  propositions  touching  this  point  which  were  announced 
in  the  series  (see  pages  50  and  51  of  this  work)  wherein  we  stated  the 
main  points  of  difference  between  Prelatists  and  other  denominations. 
They  are  as  follow  : 

Prelatists  maintain — 

That  Diocesan  Bishops  or  Prelates  are  the  true  and  only  succes- 
sors of  the  Apostles,  who  possess  valid  authority  to  ordain  to  the  min- 
istry and  govern  the  Church  : 

That  no  ordination,  even  by  these  Prelates,  can  be  valid,  unless  the 
ordainer  be  himself  a  legitimate  successor  of  a  legitimate  successor 
through  a  chain  of  Prelates  up  to  some  one  of  the  Apostles,  without 
a  break  or  flaw  in  a  solitary  link: 

That  this  succession  is  a  personal  succession,  viz  : — that  it  may  be 
traced  through  a  historical  series  of  persons,  validly  ordained  as  Pre- 
lates, transmitting  in  an  unbroken  line  this  Episcopal  order  and  power 
to  the  present  time. 

In  opposition  to  these  pretensions,  we  maintain — 

That  such  an  unbroken  line  of  Prelates  as  is  claimed  by  the  Epis- 
copal and  Romish  Churches  cannot  be  proved  to  exist ;  but  the  contra- 
ry, that  such  a  line  does  not  exist,  can  be  proved. 

The  above  opposing  propositions  may  be  sufficient  to  show  the  main 
point  at  issue.  But  there  are  several  particulars  which  enter  into  the 
succession  scheme,  and  which  are  essential  to  its  vitality.  For  exam- 
ple :  EVERY  Prelate  in  this  pretended  line  from  the  Apostles  to  the 
present  time,  (admitting  only  for  argument's  sake  that  there  always 
have  been  Prelates,  since  the  Apostolic  age,)  must  have  been — 

1.  Baptized  by  one  duly .  authorized — that  is,  either  by  a  Prelate, 
Priest,  or  Deacon,  whose  own  orders  can  be  traced  from  the  Apostles 
down,  without  any  suspicion  of  invalidity  at  any  point.  Then  he  must 
have  been — 

2.  Confirmed,  by  some  Prelate  whose  Apostolical  descent  is  un- 
doubted.    Then  he  must  have  been — 

3.  Ordained  a  Deacon,  by  some  such  Prelate.  Then  he  must  have 
been — 


THE   APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION.  163 

4.  Ordained  a  Priest,  by  some  such  Prelate.  Then  he  must  have 
been — 

5.  Ordained  a  Prelate,  by  three  or  at  least  two  other  Prelates,  of 
whose  "unbroken  spiritual  descent,"  through  each  and  all  the  forego- 
ing steps,  there  is  no  manner  of  doubt. 

These  several  points  illustrate  what  our  opponents  have  to  do.  They 
must  PROVE  every  one  of  these  particulars  to  be  true  touching  every  Pre- 
late in  Christendom,,  or  back  out  from  maintaining  their  scheme.  There 
is  no  other  alternative.  The  foregoing  five  particulars,  must  be  truly 
predicated  of  every  Prelate,  before  he  can  take  a  legitimate  standing 
and  form  a  link  in  "  succession's  chain,"  and  be  authorized  to  give 
"  the  shock  Divine;"  and  this  must  be  made  so  clear  by  "  historical 
records"  and  "catalogues,"*  that  every  "Bishop,  Priest  and  Dea- 
con" may  (and  Dr.  Hook  says  they  can,)  ascertain  beyond  a  doubt, 
their  complete  and  authorized  standing  as  the  ambassadors  of  Christ. 

That  we  have  not  magnified  either  in  importance  or  number  the  es- 
sentials to  the  valid  standing  of  a  Prelate,  according  to  the  succession 
scheme,  is  evident  for  two  reasons.  First,  Each  of  the  five  particu- 
lars mentioned  is  insisted  on  as  the  general  rule  in  the  ordinary  trans- 
actions of  the  Episcopal  Church  at  the  present  day.  Wherever  they 
deviate  from  any  one  of  them,  it  can  be  regarded  only  as  an  exception 
to  ordinary  practice.  Of  course,  we  must  judge  of  and  apply  the 
principles  of  a  system  by  its  general  rules,  rather  than  by  their  excep- 
tions. This  is  fair.  Secondly,  Many  witnesses  might  be  brought  from 
among  Prelatists  themselves  who  would  confirm  our  position.  To 
give  but  one.  Archbishop  Whateley,  (one  of  the  "  noble  few  "  among 
Prelates,)  says,  in  opposing  this  scheme  :  "  The  sacramental  virtue — 
for  such  it  is  that  is  implied  whether  the  term  be  used  or  not,  in  the 
principle  I  have  been  speaking  of — dependent  upon  the  imposition  of 
hands,  with  a  due  observance  of  Apostolical  usages,  by  a  Bishop,  Jam- 
self  duly  consecrated,  after  having  been  in  like  manner  baptized  into 
the  Church,  and  ordained  Deacon  and  Priest — this  sacramental  virtue  " 
&c.t  The  only  point  of  the  foregoing  five  which  Dr.  Whateley  omits 
is  that  of  confirmation.  It  was  evidently  not  his  intention  to  enumer- 
ate all  the  necessary  steps,  (for  he  only  speaks  of  them  incidentally,) 
but  rather   to   show  that   there    were  several  distinct   points   to  be 

*"  This  continual  descent,"  says  Dr.  Hook,  "is  evident  to  every  one  who  ciiooses 
to  investigate  it.  Let  him  read  the  catalogues  o[  our  Bishops  [Prelates]  ascending  up 
to  the  most  remote  period." 

t  Kingdom  of  Christ  delineated— Essays,  2,  sap.  30. 


164  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

made  out  in  each  case,  all  deemed  equally  essential  to  the  scheme. 
We  know,  however,  that  in  the  administration  of  the  prelatical  regi- 
men, the  general  rule  is,  (and  this  is  sufficient,  and  so  far  as  we  know, 
it  is  the  invariable  rule,)  that  confirmation  must  always  follow  baptism, 
and  be  administered  by  a  Prelate,  before  a  person  can  be  admitted  to 
the  communion  of  "the  Church,"  and  much  more,  before  he  can  be 
ordained. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  case  fully  and  fairly  before  us.  Eveiy 
individual  who  claimes  a  standing  in  the  line  of  this  Prelatico- Apos- 
tolical succession,  from  the  Apostles  down  to  the  "Bishop  of  Ten- 
nessee," must  bear  the  indelible  mark  of  each  of  these  several  quali- 
fications— and  not  only  so,  he  must  be  able  to  x>'rove  by  unimpeachable 
testimony,  by  undoubted,  authentic,  "historical  records,"  that  he  is 
thus  qualified — or  his  standing  as  a  Prelate,  and  his  authority  to 
ordain,  &c.,  according  to  this  scheme,  are  worth  no  more  than  the 
commission  held  by  the   "man  in  the  moon  !" 

Just  here,  we  stop  to  ask  a  simple  question  or  two.  Is  any  man 
on  earth  capable  of  showing  to  the  satisfaction  of  rational  minds,  the 
one-thousandth  part  of  what  this  scheme  demands  ?  Wo"uld  sober  men 
deem  a  man  in  his  right  mind  who  should  stand  up  in  open  day  and 
affirm  it  %  Does  the  "Bishop  of  Tennessee"  pretend  to  so  much  learn- 
ing, that  he  is  ready  to  tell  the  world  that  he  can  execute  the  task  ? 
Is  he  furnished  with  the  historical  proofs  of  the  existence  and  tactual 
connection  of  all  the  links  of  this  lengthened  chain  from  himself  to 
Peter,  and  is  he  prepared  to  show  that  each  bears  upon  it  the  five 
requisite  marks  %  If  so,  we  shall  be  supremely  happy  to  receive  the 
evidence  whenever  he  may  be  able  to  command  the   "time"  to  offi^r  it. 

The  perfect  impossibility  of  ever  proving  the  existence  of  such  a 
line  of  Prelates  as  this  scheme  demands,  is  seen  by  every  unbiassed 
mind  as  soon  as  the  terms  of  it  are  announced.  We  might  therefore 
at  once  abandon  it,  and  forever  repudiate  its  exclusive  and  unhallowed 
claims.  But  if  its  existence  cannot  be  proved,  its  non-entity  can  be. 
Hence  we  propose  to  occupy  a  little  space  in  showing  its  utter  nullity. 

Before  doing  this,  however,  we  will  show  what  some  learned  and 
candid  Prelatists  themselves  think  of  it. 

Bishop  Hoadley,  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  his  "Preservative," 
speaking  of  this  doctine  of  prelatical  succession,  says  :  "The  follow- 
ing arguments  will  justify  you,  which  therefore  ought  to  be  frequently 
in  the  thoughts  of  all  who  have  any  value  for  the  most  important 
points,     God  is  just  and  equal   and  good ;  and  as  sure  as  he  is,  he 


THE  APOSTOLK  AL    SUCCESSION.  165 

cannot  put  tlie  salvation  and  happiness  of  any  man  upon  what  he 
himself  has  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  any  man  upon  earth  to  be 
entirely  satisfied  in.  It  hath  not  pleased  God,  in  his  Providence,  to 
keep  up  any  proof  of  the  least  probability  or  moral  possibility  of  a 
regular  uninterrtipted   successions^ 

Chillingworth  states  the  conclusion  at  which  he  amved  on  this 
subject,  as  follows  :  "That  of  ten  thousand  probables  no  one  should 
be  false  ;  that  of  ten  thousand  requisites,  whereof  any  one  may  fail, 
not  one  should  be  wanting ;  this  to  me  is  extremely  improbable,  and 
even  cousin-german  to  impossible.  So  that  the  assurance  hereof, 
(of  an  uninterrupted  succession.)  is  like  a  machine  composed  of  an 
innumerable  multitude  of  pieces,  of  which  it  is  strangely  unlikely  but 
some  will  be  out   of  order." 

Archbishop  Whateley  remarks  :  "It  has  been  maintained,  that  the 
only  way  of  affording  complete  satisfaction  and  repose  to  the  scru- 
pulous, and  of  repressing  schism,  is  to  uphold,  under  the  title  of 
Church  principles,  the  doctrine  that  no  one  is  a  member  of  Christ's 
Church,  an  heir  of  the  covenanted  Gospel  promises,  who  is  not  under 
a  ministiy  ordained  by  Bishops  descended  in  an  unbroken  chain  from 
the  Apostles.  Now  what  is  the  degree  of  satisfactoiy  assurance  that 
is  thus  afforded  to  the  scrupulous  consciences  of  any  members  of  an 
Episcopal  Church  ?  If  a  man  consider  it  as  highly  probable  that  the 
particular  minister  at  whose  hands  he  receives  the  sacred  ordinances, 
is  really  thus  Apostolically  descended,  this  is  the  very  utmost  point  to 
which  he  can,  with  any  semblance  of  reason,  attain  :  and  the  more  he 
reflects  and  inquires,  the  more  cause  for  hesitation  he  will  find.  There 
is  not  a  mimster  in  all  Christendom,  who  is  able  to  trace  up,  with  any 
APPR0.4CH  TO  CERTAINTY,  7iis  own  Spiritual  pedigree.  The  sacramental 
virtue — for  such  it  is  that  is  implied,  whether  the  term  be  used  or 
not,  in  the  principle  I  have  been  speaking  of,  dependant  on  the  im- 
position of  hands,  with  a  due  observance  of  Apostolical  usages,  by 
a  Bishop  himself  duly  consecrated,  after  having  been  in  like  manner 
baptised  into  the  Church,  and  ordained  Deacon  and  Priest, — this 
sacramental  virtue,  if  a  single  link  of  the  chain  be  faulty,  must,  on 
the  above  principles,  be  utterly  nullified  ever  after,  in  respect  of  all 
the  links  that  hang  on  that  one.  For  if  a  Bishop  has  not  been  duly 
consecrated,  or  had  not  been  previously  rightly  ordained,  his  ordina- 
tions are  null ;  and  so  are  the  ministi'ations  of  those  ordained  by 
him ;  and  their  ordination  of  others  ;  (supposing  any  of  the  persons 
ordained  by  him  to  attain  to  the  Episcopal  ofltice,)  and  so  on,  without 


166  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

end.    The  poisonous  taint  of  informality,  if  it  once  creep  in  undetected,  will 
spread  the  infection  of  nullity  to  an  indefinite  and  irremediahle  extent. 

"And  who  can  undertake  to  pronounce,  that  during  that  long  period 
usually  designated  as  the  Dark  Ages,  no  such  taint  ever  was  intro- 
duced ]  Irregularities  could  not  have  been  wholly  excluded  without 
a  perpetual  miracle  ;  and  that  no  such  miraculous  interference  existed, 
we  have  even  historical  proof.  Amidst  the  numerous  corruptions 
of  doctrine  and  of  practice,  and  gross  superstitions,  that  ci'ept  in, 
during  those  ages,  we  find  recorded  descriptions  not  only  of  the  pro- 
found ignorance  and  profligacy  of  life,  of  many  of  the  clergy,  but  also 
of  the  grossest  irregularities  in  respect  of  discipline  and  form.  We 
read  of  Bishops  consecrated  when  mere  children  ;  of  men  officiating 
who  barely  knew  their  letters  ;  of  Prelates  expelled,  and  others  put 
in  their  places,  by  violence  ;  of  illiterate  and  profligate  laymen, 
and  habitual  drunkards,  admitted  to  holy  orders ;  and  in  short, 
of  the  prevalence  of  every  kind  of  disorder  and  reckless  disregard  of 
the  decency  which  the  Apostle  enjoins.  It  is  inconceivable  that  any 
one,  even  moderately  acquainted  with  history,  can  feel  a  certainty,  or 
any  approach  to  certainty,  that,  amidst  all  this  confusion  and  corrup- 
tion, every  requisite  form,  was,  in  every  instance,  strictly  adhered  to, 
by  men,  many  of  them  openly  profane  and  secular,  unrestrained  by 
public  opinion,  through  the  gross  ignorance  of  the  population  among 
which  they  lived  ;  and  that  no  one  not  duly  consecrated  or  ordained, 
was  admitted  to  sacred  offices. 

"Now,  let  any  one  proceed  on  the  hypothesis  that  there  are,  sup- 
pose, but  a  hundred  links  connecting  any  particular  minister  with  the 
Apostles  ;  and  let  him  even  suppose  that  not  above  half  of  this  num- 
ber pass  through  such  periods  as  admit  of  any  y>>ossiZ»/e  irregularity  ; 
and  then,  placing  at  the  lowest  estimate  the  probability  of  defective- 
ness in  respect  of  each  of  the  remaining  fifty,  taken  separately,  let 
him  consider  what  amount  of  prohahility  will  result  from  the  multi- 
plying of  the  whole  together.  Supposing  it  to  be  one  hundred  to 
one,  in  each  separate  case,  in  favor  of  the  legitimacy  and  regularity 
of  the  transmission,  and  the  links  to  amount  to  fifty,  (or  any  other 
number,)  the  probability  of  the  unbroken  continuity  of  the  whole  chain 
must  be  computedas  %%-li)Qthsof9'd-l()0ths  of2^-lQQths,  etc.,  to  the  end  of 
the  whole  fifty.  The  ultimate  consequence  must  be,  that  any  one  who 
sincerely  believes  that  his  claim  to  the  benefits  of  the  Gospel  cov- 
enant, depends  on  his  own  minister's  claim  to  the  supposed  sacra- 
mental virtue  of  true  ordination,  and  this  again,  as  above  described. 


THE   APOSTOLICAL    SUCCESSION.  1(57 

must  be  involved  in  proportion  as  he  reads,  and  mquires,  and  reflects, 
and  reasons,  on  the  subject,  in  the  most  distressing  doubt  and  per- 
plexity."* 

What  sweet  consolation  this,  to  our  modern  successionists  ! — admi- 
nistered by  the  masterly  hand  of  Richard  Whateley,  D.  D.,  the 
present  Archbishop  of  Dublin  !  Oh  !  we  pity  them ! — from  the 
bottom  of  our  heart  we  pity  them  ! — And  why  should  not,  when  they 
can  find  no  more  sympathy  for  their  beloved,  exclusive,  unchurching 
dogma,  even  from  an  Archbishop  of  "the  Church  !" 

But  seriously,  if  such  be  the  concessions  of  the  most  eminent  Pre- 
lates, why  should  we  give  this  boasted  scheme  a  second  thought  ? 
They  treat  it  with  contempt — why  should  not  we  ]  But  to  satisfy  the 
most  strenuous  of  our  opponents,  let  us  examine  the  soundness  of 
some  of  the  links  of  this  chain.  And  here  we  are  met  with  a  "pre- 
vious question" — In  what  channel  does  this  succession  run  ]  Is  it  to 
be  traced  through  the  Church  of  Rome,  or  independent  of  it  ] 

Bishop  Otey  makes  the  assertion,  in  different  forms  of  phraseology, 
no  less  than  seven  times  in  four  conseczitive  pages  (with  only  one  pao-e 
intervening,)  that  the  Popes  of  Rome  did  not  consecrate  Bishops  ;  and 
also  he  says,  that  the  succession  of  the  English  and  American  Pre- 
lates does  not  pass  through  the  Romish  Church  ! ! !  We  are  utterly  at 
a  loss  how  to  take  such  broad,  positive,  and  confident  assertions.  Of 
one  thing,  however,  we  are  well  assured — they  are  at  war  with  the 
plainest  facts  of  history — this  we  shall  prove  beyond  the  possibi- 
lity of  denial.  We  shall  prove  it  by  Episcopal  testimony.  Bishop 
Godwin,  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  his  work,  entitled,  "A  Cata- 
logue of  the  Bishops  of  England,  &c,"  which  we  now  have  lyino- 
on  our  table,  gives  numerous  instances,  from  the  seventh  to  the 
fifteenth  century,  of  the  Bishops  and  Archbishops  of  the  Eno-Hsh 
Church  having  been  consecrated,  sometimes  by  the  Popes  in  person, 
and  sometimes  by  the  Popes'  Legates,  and  frequently  in  the  city  of 
Rome  !  Here,  then,  we-  put  Bishop  against  Bishop  ;  and  we  think 
no  candid  reader  will  be  at  a  loss  to  decide,  whether  the  "Bishop  of 
Tennessee"  or  the  "  Bishop  of  Landaff""  be  entitled  to  credit.  We 
shall  at  once  assume  the  fact  that  the  latter  is  a  competent  and  cred- 
ible witness;  and  the  consequence  will  be,  that  we  are  driven  to  the 
inference,  irresistibly ,  that  the  former  has  imposed  upon  his  readers — 
whether  from  ignorance,  we  cannot  say. 

•  Kingdom   of  Christ,  Essay  2,  sec.  30.    Eor  the   testimony  ot  other  distinguished 
men  on  this  subject,  see  Appendix  C- 


168  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

[This  brings  us  to  a  point  to  the  consideration  of  which  we  ask  the 
serious  attention  of  all  whom  it  may  concern.  It  is  a  point  in  which 
is  mixed  up,  somehow,  possibly,  a  question  of  veracity  between  the 
"Bishop  of  Tennessee"  and  some  of  his  ecclesiastical  friends  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  writer  of  these  pages  on  the  other.  When  wc 
preached  last  spring  in  reply  to  Bishop  Otey,  we  felt  obliged,  in  defence 
of  the  truth,  to  disprove  his  assertions  that  the  Popes  of  Rome  did 
not  consecrate  Bishops.  Some  of  his  friends  who  heard  us  thought 
we  were  "unreasonably  severe,"  and  some  went  so  far  as  to  say, 
that  we  had  charged  their  Bishop  directly  with  "falsehood."  We 
will  not  detain  the  general  reader  here  with  any  account  of  this 
merely  personal  affair  ;  but  as  the  circumstances  of  the  case  demand 
that  what  was  then  said  and  done  should  be  made  public,  we  refer  any 
who  may  be  curious  to  know,  to  the  Appendix,  Letter  D.,  where 
they  will  find  a  full  account  of  the  matter,  viz  :  — An  extract,  verba- 
tim, from  our  discourse,  embracing  the  part  in  question — a  detail  of 
some  of  the  circumstances  which  followed — a  complete  settlement 
of  the  question  of  veracity,  showing  clearly  who,  if  any  one,  is  justly 
chargeable  with  a  want  of  fair  dealing — and  a  full  and  overwhelming 
disproof  from  Godwin,  of  Bishop  Otey's  seven-fold  assertion  about 
the  Popes'  not  ordaining  Bishops.] 

To  return  from  this  digression,  we  assert,  on  the  authority  of 
Godwin,  a  witness  whom  our  opponents  must  credit,  (and  indeed  the 
same  thing  is  evident  from  other  standard  writers, )  that,  so  far 
as  the  English  and  American  prelatical  succession  has  any  existence 
previous  to  the  English  Reformation  from  Popery,  it  must  of  necessity 
be  traced  through  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  and  not  oiily  so,  but  through 
many  of  the  Romart,  Pontiff's  in  person.  Whatever  nourishment  this 
child  of  the  imagination  has,  it  must  draw  from  the  bieast  "of  our 
holy  Mother,"  the  seven  denials  of  Bishop  Otey  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding.  We  have  been  the  more  particular  in  settling  this 
point,  because  it  narrows  down  the  limits  of  our  present  inquiry — 
it  confines  us  lo  a  single  line.  We  are  obliged  to  take  the  line 
through  the  Romish  Church  and  the  Romish  Bishops,  and  we  can  take 
no  other. 

Bishop  Otey  may  fancy  that  he  has  found  a  loophole  through  which 
to  slip,  and  avoid  the  Romish  Church.  He  has  made  the  wonderful 
discovery  that  the  Apostle  Paul  planted  the  Gospel  in  Great  Britain,* 
and  that  the  succession  has  come  straight  down  from  him,  and  of 

•Discourses,  pp.  17-21. 


THE  APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION.  169 

course  independent  of  Rome.  Now  granting  for  the  argument's  sake 
that  Paul  did  plant  the  Gospel  in  Britain,  (of  which  we  challenge 
any  conclusive  evidence,)  still  the  English  and  American  succession 
must  come  directly  from  Rome,  and  never  can  thus  be  traced  to  Paul, 
just  so  long  as  it  stands  in  the  veritable  records  of  history,  tJiat  far 
eight  centuries  the  Fopes  actually  did  ordain  the  English  Prelates. 
Our  present  position  must  therefore  stand,  and  to  Rome  they  must  go, 
like  it  or  not. 

One  more  obstacle  is  thrown  in  the  way,  which,  when  removed, 
will  permit  us  to  begin  the  investigation  at  the  right  point,  and  to  test 
the  soundness  of  this  "thing  wonderful."  The  nature  of  the  obstacle 
may  be  learned  from  the  following  extract.  Bishop  Otey,  (or  rather 
his  Philadelphia  friend  from  whom  he  quotes,)  after  portraying  the 
religious  state  of  the  early  Britons,  says  :  "  It  was  in  this  condition, 
about  the  year  590,  that  Augustine  found  them.  He  had  come  on  a 
mission  from  Gregory,  Bishop  of  Rome,  to  attempt  the  conversion  of 
the  Saxons,"  &c.  After  speaking  of  Augustine's  arrival,  reception, 
and  subsequent  consecration  as  Archbishop  and  investment  with  the 
jiall,  he  proceeds:  "Here  was  the  beginning  of  that  assumption  of 
authority  which  the  successors  of  Gregory,  the  Popes  of  Rome,  have 
since  claimed  to  exercise  over  the  British  Church.  It  has  never  been 
pretended  even,  that  Augustine  received  his  spiritual  authority  as  a  Bi- 
shop, by  consecration  at  the  hands  of  Gregory.  All  history  testifies 
that  he  was  consecrated  by  the  Archbishop  of  Aries,  a  See  at  that 
time  independent  of  Rome,  and  consequently  the  line  of  succession 
among  the  English  Bishops  if  traced  through  the  Archhishop  of  Canter- 
bury CONDUCTS  NOT  TO  RoME,  but  to  Arles,  and  thence  to  Lyons — 
thence  to  Smyrna,  where  Polycarp  presided  as  Bishop,  and  from  him 
to  St.  John,  at  Ephesus."* 

This  is  another  device  to  avoid  Rome.  Our  friends  for  some  reason 
have  a  great  dislike  to  have  their  claims  tried  at  Rome  !  We  shall 
soon  be  able  to  see  the  ground  of  their  dislike.  The  amount  of  the 
foregoing  story,  is  this — that  the  consecrations  of  the  English  Prelates 
may  be  traced  in  the  line  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  directly 
up  to  Augustine,  (whom  Godwin  styles  "  the  first  Archbishop  of  the 
Metropolitan  See  of  Canterbury,")  and  from  him  "  to  Aries,  Lyons, 

•  Discourses,  pp.  23,  24. — The  facts  and  reasoning  of  Bishop  Otey  on  tiiis  point 
through  several  pages,  seem  to  have  been  taken  mainly  from  a  little  book  entitled  "  An 
Offering  to  Churchmen,"  &c.,  on  "  the  origin  and  compilation  of  the  Prayer  Book,"  by 
Rector  Odenheimer,  of  Philadelphia 


170  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

Smyrna  and  Ephesus," — and  thus  Rome  may  he  avoided  as  easily  as 
though  Rome  never  was! 

This  is  a  beautiful  theory,  but  it  is  spoiled  by  the  stubbornness  of 
facts.  We  pronounce  this  scheme  of  pretending  to  trace  the  succes- 
sion, fallacious  and  deceptive,  and  the  main  thing  intended  to  be  taught 
by  it,  utterly  untrue!  It  is  a  connected  line  of  ordainers  which  our  op- 
ponents must  prove,  in  order  to  make  out  an  "  uninterrupted  succes- 
sion." But  does  the  list  of  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  exhibit  a 
tactually  connected  list  of  ordainers? — that  is  to  say,  did  each  incum- 
bent of  that  See  consecrate  Ms  successor'!  Certainly  not,  for  each  in- 
cumbent died  before  his  successor  w^as  appointed.  Then  how  does 
such  a  list  show  "an  uninterrupted  series  of  valid  ordinationsV^  It 
does  not  show  it,  and  has  nothing  more  to  do  with  the  matter  in  hand 
than  the  man  in  the  moon.  Not  a  word  is  said  about  the  consecrators 
of  these  Archbishops  !  A  list  of  Prelates  in  this  or  any  other  particular 
See,  is  one  thing — a  list  of  consecrators  of  such  Rrelates,  is  quite 
another.  The  latter  is  what  must  be  proved,  or  the  succession  is  not 
proved.  Now  who  were  the  consecrators  of  these  Archbishops  of 
Canterbury?  Here  is  the  grand  and  vital  point — who  were  they? 
Bishop  Otey  and  his  Philadelphia  friend  have  slipped  by  this  point  in 
utter  silence!  But  we  are  not  to  be  caught  napping  just  now — who 
consecrated  these  Archbishops'?  Why — the  Popes  of  Rome — 
FOR  eight  centuries  !  !  Now,  cannot  any  child  see,  that  in  order  to 
trace  the  "  Apostolical  succession,"  (which,  according  to  Dr.  Hook, 
and  common  sense  too,  Tnust  be  traced,  if  at  all,  in  "  a  series  of  valid 
ordinations^''^  you  must  travel  in  the  line  of  the  consecrators  of  these 
Archbishops,  rather  than  in  the  line  of  the  Archbishops  themselves? 
You  must  search  for  this  line  through  the  Popes  who  consecrated  these 
Archbishops.  The  moment  you  come,  when  ascending  this  line,  to  the 
first  one  who  was  consecrated  by  a  Pope,  or  a  Pope's  Legate,  or 
a  Cardinal,  you  are  obliged  to  take  the  straight  road  to  Ro7ne,  and  then 
you  must  go  up  in  the  line  of  that  Papers  consecrators,  and  so  on,  and 

on,  in  the  line  of  consecrators  of  each,  until  you  come  to say,  for 

the  present,  Peter  :  but  more  of  Peter  by-and-by.  And  so  of  every 
one  in  this  list  who  was  consecrated  by  a  Pope — the  line  of  ordainers 
turns  off  at  each,  directly  to  Rome,  and  runs  at  right  angles  to  the  line 
»of  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury.* 

•  In  order  to  make  the  most  of  this  false  theory  of  tracing  the  succession  through  Can. 
terbury,  Bishop  Otey  has  given  us  a  list  of  the  incumbents  of  this  See,  from  Augustine 
to  the  consecrator  ot  Bishop  White,  of  Pennsylvania,  and  a  list  of  (alleged)  Prelates 
from  Augustine  through  Lyons,  &c.,  to  the  Apostle  John — thus  pretending  to  trace  the 


THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  171 

We  must,  then,  in  order  to  inquire  at  the  riglit  point  in  testing 
the  strength  of  "succession's  chain,"  begin  with  those  purporting  to 
have  been  Bishops  of  Rome,  and  come  down  in  that  hne  to  the  time 
of  the  Reformation,  when  England  threw  off  the  Papal  yoke.  Pre- 
vious to  this,  the  line  upon  the  soundness  of  which  English  and  Ameri- 
can Prelates  are  ohliged  to  stake  their  fortunes,  is  identical  with  that 
of  Rome.  Accordingly,  Dr.  Hook  of  England  seems  not  to  have 
dreamed  of  tracing  English  orders  in  any  other  channel.  He  says  : 
"The  Prelates  who  at  the  present  time  rule  the  Churches  of  these 
realms,  were  validly  ordained  by  others,  who,  by  means  of  an 
unbroken  spiritual  descent  of  ordination,  derived  their  mission  from 
the  Apostles  and  from  our  Lord.  This  continued  descent  is  evident 
to  every  one  who  chooses  to  investigate  it.  Let  him  read  the  cata- 
logues of  our  Bishops  ascending  up  to  the  most  remote  period.  Our 
ordinations  descend  in  a  direct  unbroken  line  from  Peter  and  Paul, 
the  Apostles  of  the  circumcision  and  the  Gentiles.  These  great 
Apostles  successively  ordained  Linus,  Cletus,  and  Clement,  Bishops 
of  Rome  ;  and  the  Apostolic  succession  was  regularly  continued  from 
THEM  to  Celestine,  Gregory,  and  Vitalianus,  who  ordained  Patrick 
Bishop  for  the  Irish,  and  Augustin  and  Theodore  for  the  English. 
And  from  those  times,  an  uninterrupted  series  of  valid  ordinations 
has  carried  down  the  Apostolical  succession  in  our  Churches  to  the 
present  day.  There  is  not  a  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon  among  us, 
who  cannot,  if  he  please,  trace  his  own  spiritual  descent  from  St. 
Peter  or  St.  Paul."* 

We  now  have  the  case  fairly  before  us.  We  must  begin  at  "St, 
Peter  or  St.  Paul,"  and  coming  down  by  way  of  Rome,  see  if  we  can 
find  the  "unbroken  line."  Dr.  Hook  says  it  "is  evident  to  every  one 
who  chooses  to  investigate  it."  Dr.  Hook  is  not  alone  in  asserting 
with  confidence  that  the  succession  may  be  easily  traced.  The  great 
mass  who  believe  in  the  fable,  assert  it — none  more  boldly  than  the 
"Bishop  of  Tennessee."  Hear  him :  "Ordination  is  the  regular 
induction  to  office  by  lawful  authority,  in  ojjposition  to  its  unauthor- 
ised and  arrogant  assumption.  [This  means  us  poor  "dissenters,'^  pro- 
succession  directly  from  John,  through  Canterbury,  to  Bishop  White,  and  of  course  es- 
cuping  Rome  with  all  imaginable  ease!  We  have  already  shown  above  the  fallacy  of 
this  scheme ;  but  as  Bishop  Otey's  paper  succession  may  to  some  look  plausible,  we  shall 
give  it  further  notice  ; — for  which  see  Appendix  E.  But  what  becomes  of  poor  Paul  in  all 
this?  Having  "  planted  the  Gospel  in  Britain,"  is  he  now  to  have  not  the  honor  of  even 
a  place  in  the  British  succession? 

*  >Sermonson  the  Church  and  the  establishment. 


172  PRELACY    EXAMINLCD. 

bably.]  Now  it  is  clear  that  such  a  fact  is  as  capable  of  proof  as  any 
other  fact.  And  consequently  a  succession  of  ordinatimis  is  of  far 
more  easy  proof  than  lineal  succession — such  for  example  as  the  suc- 
cession of  the  Aaronic  Priesthood."  Again  :  "The  truth  and  cer- 
tainty of  the  Episcopal  succession  are  made  evident,  by  the  tes- 
timony of  many  witnesses  to  a  public  transaction,  which  is  made 
matter  of  public  record."  Again  :  "Trace  the  lines  of  Episcopal  suc- 
cession where  you  please,  that  at  Canterbury,  at  Aries  or  Lyons  in 
France,  or  at  Rome,  or  at  Constantinople,  and  what  does  it  prove  % 
Why,  that  these  Churches  never  allowed  of  any  other  than  Episcopal 
consecration  or  ordination.  If  then  the  rejectors  of  Episcopacy  will 
take  any  of  these  lists  and  show  where  it  is  defective — if  they  will 
show  us  cause  to  believe  that  ifi  any  one  case  or  in  any  number  of 
cases,  the  rule  established  throughout  the  Church  has  heen  violated  or 
neglected  or  evaded,  we  shall  then  have  before  us  a  matter  admitting 
of  discussion — But  until  this  is  done,  we  shall  take  their  broad  declara- 
tions about  the  Episcopal  succession,  as  naked  assertions,  which  can 
only  be  met  by  positive  and  direct  and  unequivocal  denial."* 

Here  then  we  have  it  in  plain  language.  Such  a  "succession  of 
ordinations'^  as  the  "Apostolical  succession"  rests  upon,  is  of  "easy 
proof,"  and  we  are  challenged  to  "take  any"  one  of  several  "lists 
and  show  where  it  is  defective."  We  accept  the  challenge.  But 
before  we  enter  upon  the  work,  let  us  ask  a  plain  question.  If  the 
succession  is  of  such  "easy  proof,"  would  it  not  have  been  better  for 
Bishop  Otey  to  have  produced  it,  than  to  have  challenged  us  to  "show 
where"  his  lists  are  "defective  ]"  If  he  "will  take  any  of  these 
lists  and  show"  from  any  duly  authenticated  "public  record,"  that 
every  link  in  the  chain  bears  upon  it  the  five  requisite  marks  before 
m3ntioned,  we  will  engage  to  enter  the  Episcopal  Church,  (provided 
always  he  will  receive  us,)  and  to  defend  Prelacy  with  all  one  might. 
Here  is  a  challenge,   and  we  give  him  "twenty  years"  to  think  of  it. 

But  let  us  test  the  strength  of 

"Succession's  chain,  with  links  all  counted  tactical, 
"From  where,  '.'tis  said  !)  the  Great  Apostle  sat  withal-" 

It  has  been  determined  we  think  fairly,  by  prelatical  authority,  that 

we  must  begin  at  Rome.     This  being  settled,  then  what  is  to  be  done  ? 

We  have  promised  to  do  two  things  ;  first,  to  show  that  this   scheme 

rests  upon  no  such  certain  foundation,  as  Dr.  Hook   and  Prelatists 

generally  insist,  but  that  in  its  best  estate  it  is  totally  imcertain  ;   and 

•  Discourees,  pp.  64,  65,  66. 


THE  APOSTOLICAL    SUCCESSION.  I/O 

secondly,  that  the  scheme  is  a  positive  and  palpable  non-entity,  the 
pretended  line  having  been  sundered  at  divers  times  and  in  divers 
ways. 

1.  There  is  no  certainty  in  the  case  :  that  is,  there  is  not 
Jiistorical  evidence  stiffident  to  prove  a  personal  succession  of  Prelates, 
**  by  means  of  an  unbroken  series  of  valid  ordinations."  Prelatists 
declare  that  there  is  an  absolute  certainty  in  this  matter,  Dr.  Hook  be- 
ing witness  ;*  and  indeed  nothing  less  than  that  will  avail  them. 

A  principal  witness  relied  on  to  prove  the  succession,  is  Eusebius. 
Bishop  Otey  says  of  him :  "If  the  time  allowed  we  might  quote  *  * 
*  *  *  *  particularly  Eusebius,  A.  D.  320,  the  first  ecclesiastical 
historian,  and  who  has  given  us  catalogues  of  the  Bishops  by  name,  in 
the  order  of  their  succession,  in  all  the  principal  Churches  from 
the  Apostles  down  to  his  time."t  Now  to  understand  how  much 
certainty  there  may  be  in  the  testimony  of  "the  first  ecclesiastical  his- 
torian," living  and  writing  in  the  fourth  century,  let  us  hear  his  own 
words.  If  any  one  had  facilities  for  placing  the  matter  beyond  doubt, 
it  was  Eusebius.  He  was  familiar  with  all  the  remains  of  previous 
antiquity.  Constantino  the  Great  was  his  particular  friend.  He 
informs  us  in  the  first  words  of  his  history  of  his  object  in  writing, 
as  follows  :  "As  it  is  my  puqjose  to  record  the  successions  of  the  Holy 
Apostles,  together  with  the  times  since  our  Saviour,  down  to  the 
present,  to  lecount  how  many  and  important  transactions  are  said  to 
have  occured  in  ecclesiastical  history,  what  individuals  in  the  most 
noted  places  eminently  governed  and  presided  over  the  Church,*  *  * 
I  shall  go  back  to  the  very  origin  and  the  isarliest  introduction  of 
the  dispensation  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  the  Christ  of  God."  This 
shows  his  object  in  writing.  Now  mark  his  own  account  of  the  cer- 
tainty, he  possessed  on  these  topics.  Immediately  after  the  above 
quotation  comes  the  following  :  "But  here,  acknowledging  that  it  is 
beyond  my  power  to  present  the  work  perfect  and  unexceptionable, 
I  freely  confess  it  will  crave  indulgence,  especially  since,  as  the  first 
of  those  that  have  entered  upon  the  subject,  we  are  attempting  a 
kind  of  tracldess  andj  unbeaten  path.  Looking  up  with  prayer  to 
God  as  our  guide,  we  trust  indeed  that  we  shall  have  the  power  of 
Christ  as  our  aid,  though  we  are  totally  unable  to  find  even  the  bare 

*  "There  is  not  a  Bishop,  Priest  or  Deacon,  among  us,  xalio  cannot,  if  he  please,  trace 
his  own  spiritual  descent  from  St.  Peter  or  St.  Paul."  "This  continued  descent  is  evi- 
dent  to  every  one  who  chooses  to  ivcstigate  it."— Dn.  Hook. 

t  Discourses,  p.  62. 

X 


174  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

vestiges  of  those  wlio  may  have  travelled  the  way  before  us  ;  unless, 
perhaps,  what  is  only  present  in  the  slight  intimations  w^hich  some  in 
different  w^ays  have  transmitted  to  us  in  certain  fartial  narratives  of 
the  times  in  v^hich  they  lived.  *******  I  have  not  yet 
been  able  to  find  that  any  of  the  ecclesiastical  writers  have  directed 
their  efforts  to  present  any  thing  complete  in  this  department  of  wri- 
ing."*  What  a  luminous  path,  and  what  glorious  certainty  !  Bi;t  hear 
Eusebius  again.  He  has  a  chapter  entitled  "The  first  successors  of 
the  AjDostles."  Here  surely  we  shall  have  it,  if  any  where.  This  chap- 
ter begins  :  "That  Paul  preached  to  the  Gentiles,  and  established 
Churches  from  Jerusalem  and  around  as  far  as  Illyricum,  is  evident 
both  from  his  own  expressions,  and  from  the  testimony  of  Luke  in  the 
hook  of  Acts.  And  in  what  provinces  Peter  also  proclaimed  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ,  the  doctrine  of  the  new  covenant,  appears  from  his 
own  writings,  and  may  be  seen  from  that  Epistle  we  have  mentioned 
as  admitted  in  the  canon,  and  which  he  addressed  to  the  Hebrews  in 
the  dispersion  throughout  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia  and 
Bithynia.  But  how  many  and  which  of  these,  actuated  by  a  genuine 
zeal,  were  judged  suitable  to  feed  the  Churches  established  by  these 
Apostles,  it  is  not  easy  to  say,  any  further  than  may  he  gathered  from 
the  writings  of  Paul  .'"f 

According  to  this,  all  that  Eusebius  knew  of  the  "  successors  of  the 
Apostles  "  previous  to  his  ovm  times,  (fourth  century)  which  bore  any 
approach  to  certainty,  he  had  gathered  from  the  Scriptures! — from  the 
brief  history  of  the  Church  found  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and 
from  the  writings  of  Paul  and  Peter  !  How  much  wiser  was  the  his- 
torian of  the  fourth  century  about  the  successors  of  the  Apostles  than 
we  of  the  nineteenth'?  He  had  the  Scriptures,  and  so  have  we.  Will 
the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee  "  tell  the  world  where  the  "lists  "  are  to 
be  found  in  the  sacred  volume?  But  we  have  the  admission  of  prelat- 
ical  writers  that  Eusebius  had  no  records  to  go  by.  Bishop  Pearson 
says  that  the  supposition  that  he  had  Catalogues  of  the  Roman  Bishops 
is  utterly  vain.     His  words  are — "  conjecturam  vanissimam  esse.'^\ 

The  list  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome  which  Eusebius  does  give  us,  gath- 
ered from  "  the  bare  vestiges,"  "  slight  intimations "  and  "  partial 
narratives  "  which  he  found,  is  contradicted  by  the  testimony  of  other 
writers.     That  the  reader  may  see  the  "  glorious  certainty  "  of  the 

*  Ecc.  Hist.  Book  1,  Chap.  1. 
t  Ecc.  Hist.,  Book  3,  chap.  4. 
%  Pearson's  Posthumous  works. 


THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  175 

succession,  we  give  on  the  next  page  several  conflicting  lists  of  the  first 
Jive  "Bishops  of  Rome,"  as  furnished  by  different  historians  and  Fathers, 
These  lists  agi'ee  in  one  point — in  making  the  Apostle  Peter  the  first 
"Bishop  "  of  Rome.  But  it  is  a  question  never  yet  settled  among  the 
learned  of  any  party,  (unless  it  be  among  Romanists)  whether  Peter 
was  ever  at  Rome — much  less  whether  he  was  ever  "  Bishop  "  over 
the  Church  there.  Archbishop  Cranmer  says  :  "It  is  not  even  certain 
that  Peter  roas  ever  at  Rome."*  Dr.  Cave  says  :  "  There  is  a  false 
basis  in  this  case  at  the  bottom,  it  being  taken  for  granted,  that  St. 
Peter  was  in  a  proper  sense  Bishop  of  Rome,  which  yet  I  believe 
can  never  be  made  good."t  And  the  same  testimony  is  given  by  the 
most  eminent  Reformers  on  the  continent  of  Europe. 

It  is  therefore  absolutely  impossible  to  make  a  beginning  in  this 
chain  with  any  thing  approaching  to  Dr.  Hook's  certainty!^  The  learn- 
ed Doctor  shows  himself  to  be  quite  a  tactician  in  passing  a  difficulty 
which  must  have  met  him  at  the  very  outset.  He  knew  that  he  could 
not  prove  that  Peter  was  ever  at  Rome,  and  therefore  he  says :  "There 
is  not  a  Bishop,  Priest  or  Deacon,  among  us,  who  cannot,  if  he  please, 
trace  his  own  spiritual  descent  from  St.  Peter  or  St.  Paul.  "  This  is 
at  least  convenient.  If  Peter  will  not  hold  one  end  of  the  chain,  per- 
haps Paul  will !  But  this  trick  will  avail  him  nothing  ;  for  all  the  au- 
thorities we  have  for  making  his  own  Linus,  Cletus  and  Clement  as 
the  second,  third  and  fourth  links  in  the  chain,  make  them  to  have  de- 
rived the  succession  from  Petei  and  not  from  Paul.  We  must  take 
Peter,  therefore,  and  release  Paul  from  any  responsibility  in  the  mat- 
ter.    But  here  are  the  lists,  from  the  different  authorities  : 

*  See  Burnet's  Hist-  of  the  Reformation. 

tOntheGov.  of  the  Primitive  Church. 

tAs  regards  the  certainty  of  tracing  the  succession  "  in  any  age  of  the  Church,"  Bishop 
Otey  aslis :  "  Is  it  morally  possihle,  think  you,  that  any  man  could  successfully  claim  and 
exercise  the  Episcopal  office  in  the  Catholic  Church  ot  this  country  or  in  England  at  this 
day,  without  showing  that  he  had  received  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination  ?  .  .  . 
.  .  If  then  such  a  thing  be  morally  impossible  now,  let  those  who  declaim  against 
the  Apostolical  succession,  show  how  it  was  morally  possible  in  any  precedingage  of  the 
Church,  acting  under  identically  the  same  rule  of  ordination  or  consecration. "-J9js.^.  65. 
To  the  above  question,  so  triumphantly  put,  let  Archbishop  Whateley  answer  :  "  Even 
in  the  memory  of  persons  living,  there  existed  a  Bishop,  concerning  whom  there  was  so 
much  mystery  and  Mjicer^aiW)/ prevailing,  as  to  when,  where,  and  by  whom,  he  had  been 
ordained,  that  doubts  existed,  in  the  mind  of  many  persons,  whether  he  had  ever  been  or- 
dained at  alL^—Kingdovi  of  Christ  delineated.  Essay  2,  sec.  30.  Who  now  is  the  "  de» 
ciaimer?"    These  Archbishops  are  sometimes  very  troublesome! 


176 


PRELACY    EXAMINED. 


BISHOPS  OF  ROME.^ 
1.  Peter. 


/.  Class. 
'2.  Linus, 

3.  Cletus, 

4.  Clement, 

r>   Ancucletus. 


//.  Class. 
2.  Clement. 


///.  Class. 

2.  Linus, 

3.  Aneucletus, 

4.  Clement, 

5.  Evarestus. 

1.  Peter. 


JV.  Class. 

2.  Linus, 

3.  Cletus, 

4.  Aneucletus, 

5.  Clement. 


2.  Linus.      2.  Clement. 


3.  Cletus. 


3.  Aneucletus. 


4.  Clement. 


4.  Aneucletus.  4.  Clement. 


5.  Aneucletus.  5.  Evarestus.   5.  Clement, 

1.  Peter. 

Linus, 

Clement... 
Cletus,.... 
Aneucletus 


2d.  Bishop.. 
3d.  Bishop.. 

4th  khop <  Clement 

'  ^  Aneucletus . 

C  Aneucletus 


5th  Bishop.. 


r.  <  Evarestus 
(  Cleme 


;letus,.  ) 
stus, ..  > 
3nt....  ) 


Two  occupants. 
Two  occupants. 
Two  occupants. 

Three  occupants. 


Peter  is  placed  First. 

i  Second, 
Clement      <  Fourth,  and 
Fifth. 


i  Third, 
i<  F: 


Aneucletus-^  Fourth,  and 
(  Fifth. 

To  the  above  lists,  (so  beautifully  coincident !)  niigbt  be  added  oth- 
ers equally  conflicting.  Admitting,  as  we  have,  w^ithout  proof,  that 
Peter  was  the  Jlrst  Bishop  of  Rome,  then  the  question  arises,  who 
succeeded  Peter?  No  man  on  earth  can  answer.  One  authority  says 
one  person,  and  another  says  another  person;  and  yet  these   are  the 

*  We  have  only  taken  the  first  five  who  ate  reported  by  different  authorities  to  have 
been  "  Bishops  of  Rome,"  as  quite  sufficient  to  show  the  total  want  of  certainty  in  as- 
certaining even  the  heginning  of  "  succession's  chain-' '  The  1st  Class  is  the  one  present- 
ed by  Dr.  Hook  and  other  succession  divines  of  England,  and  is  the  same  as  that  found 
in  the  Roman  "  Pontifical,"  from  which  the  catalogues  of  the  Romish  Church  are  made. 
The  2d  Class  which  places  Clement  next  to  Peter  and  before  Linus  and  Cletus  in  the 
li.stof  Dr.  Hook  &  Co.,  is  advocated  by  Tertullian,  Rufinus,  and  as  Jerome  declares,  by 
"  most  of  the  Latin  authors''''  The  3d  Class  is  taken  from  Eusebius  (Ecc.  Hist.,  book  5, 
c-  6,  entitled  "  Catalogue  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome.")  This  is  also  advocated  by  Iren- 
aeus  [A.  D.  180] — and  "  last  though  not  least,"  by  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee"  as  we 
jsuppose,  ibr  he  refers  to  Eusebius  as  a  writer  on  this  point  vvhom  he  "might  quote  "  if 
he  had  "  time."  The  4th  Glass  is  advocated  by  Augustine,  Damasus,  Optatus  and  oth- 
ers. The  cer^rttH?)/ attending  tliis  whole  business  puis  tlio  "  glorious  uncertainty  ot  the 
law  "  quite  to  ilie  blush ! 


THE    APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  177 

very  witnesses  to  whom  we  are  referred  to  prove  the   succession  ! — 
Look  at  the  above  lists  a  moment: 

1.  Dr.  Hook's  list  agrees  with  the  Roman  "  Pontifical  "  from  which 
the  Romanists  pretend  to  prove  their  succession  ;  and  Dr.  Hook  is  at 
the  present  moment  an  oracle  among  succession  divines  in  England. 
But  Tertullian,  Rufinus  and  others  flatly  contradict  Dr.  Hook  &  Co., 
and  say  Clement  succeeded  Peter.  Jerome  also  declares  that  "  most  of 
the  Latin  authors  supposed  the  order  to  be  Clement  the  successor  of 
Peter."  But  Jerome,  Eusebius,  Augustine  and  others  contradict 
these  last  and  say  Linus  succeeded  Peter.  Besides,  Bishop  Pearson  is 
deemed  by  many  to  have  "  proved  that  Linus  died  hefore  Peter!" — 
Fi'om  all  this  it  must  be  evident  that  no  certainty  is  to  be  had  as  to 
Peter's  successor.  And  this  is  just  what  many  Romanists  and  Prel- 
atists  say.  Cabassute,  the  Popish  historian  of  the  Councils  says  :  "It 
is  a  very  douhiful  question  concerning  Linus,  Cletus  and  Clement,  as  to 
which  of  them  succeeded  Peter."  Dr.  Comber,  a  Church  of  Eng- 
land divine  says :  "  Upon  the  whole  matter  there  is  no  certainty  who 
was  Bishop  of  Rome  next  to  the  Apostles,  and  therefore  the  Romanists 
build  upon  an  ill  bottom  when  they  lay  so  great  weight  on  their  per- 
sonal succession."* 

2.  Is  there  any  more  certainty  who  was  the  second  from  Peterl — 
Dr.  Hook  and  the  Romanists  say  Cletus;  but  numerous  authorities  (as 
above)  contradict  them,  some  saying  Linus,  and  some  Aneucletus — 
Upon  this  Dr.  Comber  says  :  "The  like  blunder  there  is  about  the  next 
Pope  (or  Bishop  of  Rome.)  The  fahulous  Pontifical  makes  Cletus 
succeed  Linus,  and  gives  us  several  lives  of  Cletus  and  Aneucletus, 
putting  Clement  between  them.  Yet  the  aforesaid  learned  Bishop  of 
Chester  proves  that  these  were  only  two  names  of  the  same  person  ; 
but  the  notes  attempt  to  justify  the  forged  Pontifical,  by  affirming  that 
Ignatius,  Irenaeus,  Eusebius,  St.  Augustine  and  Optatus  tvere  all  mis- 
taken,  or  all  wronged  by  their  transcribers,  ^ut  every  candid  reader 
will  rather  believe  the  mistake  to  be  in  the  Pontifical."  And  yet,  not- 
withstanding this  home-thrust  by  a  learned  Church  of  England  divine 
at  the  "  Pontifical,"  upon  which  Rome  relies  for  her  list.  Dr.  Hook 
follows  it  as  his  authority  !     Dr.  Comber's  charge   ol  forgery  upon  it 

*  On  the  "  Roman  Forg.  in  Council."  This  language  of  Dr.  Comber  was  generally 
used  by  Church  of  England  divines  against  Papists  when  fighting  "succession"  battles 
with  them  in  formerdays.  If  good  against  them  then,  it  avails  equally  well  with  us 
against  Prelatists  now,  as  the  beginning  of  the  line  (if  indeed  it  has  a  beginning)  is  the 
same  with  both  parties. 


178  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

hits  Dr.  Hook  &  Co.,  the  English  successionists,  as  hard  as  it  does  the 
Romish.  That  the  "  Pontifical  "  is  in  many  parts  a  forgery  is  main- 
tained by  more  persons  than  Dr.  Comber.  Bishop  Jewel,  Du  Pin  and 
others  pronounced  it  such.  What  triumphant  certainty  in  a  succes- 
sion whose  main  reliance  is  a  forgery  ! 

3.  Who  was  the  third  from  Peter*?  Dr.  Hook  and  Co,  say  Clement. 
But  as  before  remarked,  Tertullian,  Rufinus,  and  according  to  Jerome, 
(whom  Bingham  allows  to  "  speak  the  sense  of  the  ancients,")  '■'■most 
of  the  Latin  authors,"  say  "  Clement  succeeded  next  to  Peter."  Be- 
sides this,  Platina,  the  biographer  of  the  Popes,  says  that  just  before 
Peter's  martyrdoin  he  appointed  Clement  to  be  Bishop  of  Rome. — 
But  at  the  same  time,  he  allows  twenty-three  years  to  the  presidency 
of  Linus  and  Cletus  as  preceding  Clement  in  that  Bishopric  !  That 
is,  in  plain  English,  Peter  had  heen  dead  more  than  twenty  years  when 
Clement  became  Bishop;  and  yet,  Peter  made  him  Bishop  of  Rome!!! 
Well  may  Cabassute  declare,  "the  whole  question  is  very  doubtfiiV — 
and  Dr.  Prideaux  a  learned  Church  of  England  divine,  ''no  certainty 
is  to  be  had;"  and  Howell,  another  Churchman  :  "Here  it  is  evident 
how  very  doubtful  and  uncertain  is  the  personal  succession  of  the 
Roman  Bishops  ;"  and  Dr.  Comber  :  "^  sufficient  proof  that  there  is 
neither  truth  nor  certainty  in  the  pretended  personal  succession  of  the 
first  Popes,"  or  Bishops  of  Rome.  And  well  may  Mr.  Percival,  in 
apparent  despair,   earnestly  call  on  us  to  exercise   "faith!" 

It  is,  then,  from  all  the  foregoing,  (and  an  immense  mass  of  testi- 
mony might  be  added,)  a  positive  and  ahsolate  uncertainty  as  to 
who  succeeded  the  Apostles  in  presiding  over  the  Church  at  Rome. 
No  man  on  earth,  whether  he  be  "Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon,"  can 
tell  who  is  the  first  link  in  this  chain,  Dr.  Hook  and  the  "Bishop  of 
Tennesse"  to  the  contrary. 

We  might  here  dismiss  the  subject,  and  give  up  in  despair  the 
possibility  of  finding  an  unbroken  line  of  Prelates  from  the  Apostles 
to  the  present  day,  for  we  consider  it  an  axiom,  true  both  in  morals 
and  physicals,  that  tliat  which  has  no  beginning  can  have  no  continuance. 
This  pretended  successsion  has  no  certain  beginning  which  can  be 
made  out  from  the  records  of  history.  It  therefore  can  have  no  cer- 
tain continuance.     We  might  then  bid  it  a  final  farewell. 

Nor  have  we  yet  touched  upon  one  tithe  of  the  difficulties  which 
cluster  around  the  very  first  links  in  this  chain.  We  have  only  yet 
inquired  who  are  the  men  1  what  their  names  1  that  filled  in  succes- 
sive order  the  chair  of  Peter,  admitting  that  he  once  sat  init  ?  To 


THE   APOSTOLICAL    SUCCESSION.  179 

this  simple  question,  history  presents  for  answer,  a  mass  of  contra- 
dictions !*  But  suppose  we  should  admit  that  all  the  testimony  of 
history  coincided  in  making  Peter  the  first  who  presided  at  Rome, 
arid  also  coincided  in  the  persons  of  his  first  four  successors,  then 
several  questions  would  arise  : — 

1.  Wliat  ^jrtc?  of  "Bishops  of  Rome"  were  these] — Prelates?  or  only 
parochial  Bishops  1  We  maintain  that  all  the  Bishops  of  the  early 
Churches  were  but  Pastors  of  single  congregations,  Presbyter-Bish- 
ops, like  those  of  the  Scriptures  ;  and  we  think  we  have  given  some 
evidence  as  well  as  the  concessions  of  many  Prelatists  to  prove  it. 
It  must  then  he  proved  that  these  "Bishops"  were  P/eZate*,  for  it  is 
a  prelatical  succession  that  is  contended  for.  But  let  all  this  pass. 
Suppose  we  admit  that  these  "Bishops  of  Rome"  are  not  fabulous 
either  in  name  or  character,  but  are  all  bona  fide  Prelates ;  then, 
taking  either  Eusebius'  or  Dr.  Hook's    list, — 

2.  Who  made  Linus  Prelate  of  Rome  next  to  Peter  %  Who  or- 
dained him,  or  "consecrated"  him  over  that  "Diocese  V  Was  he 
ever  ordaiiied  ?  These  are  important  questions  for  the  succession  to 
answer ;  for  be  it  remembered,  it  is  a  "series  of  ordinations  and 
ordaincrs'''  which  constitutes  the  vitality  of  the  succession,  if  it  have 
any,  and  not  merely  a  list  of  persons  who  filled  this  or  that  See.  It 
is  not  only  necessary  therefore  to  inquire  whether  Linus  was  ever 
ordained,  but  also  who  were  his  ordainers,  for  unless  thei/  had  valid 
authority,  his  ordination,  if  he  had  any,  was  worthless.  Who  can 
answer  these    questions  ?     Dr.   Hook  would  probably  say,  if   hard 

pressed,  "Peter  or  Paul"  ordained  him.  But  Eusebius,  Bishop 
Otey's  authority,  says  it  was  "after  the  martyrdom  of  Paul  and  Peter 
that  Linus  received  the  Episcopate  of  Rome ;"  consequently  he 
could  not  have  been  consecrated  to  it  by  either  of  them.t  Whether 
then  Linus  was  ever  ordained,  and  if  so,  by  whom,  are  questions 
which  no  man  on  earth  can  settle.  The  "Apostolical  Constitutions" 
indeed  say  that  Linus  was  ordained  by  Paul,  while  others  suppose 
he  was    ordained  by  Peter,  and  yet   Eusebius  says  he  received  the 

*  Waddingion,  a  divine  of  the  Church  ot  England,  in  his  recent  Eccletifisiical  His- 
tory, says:  "The  succession  of  the  earliest  Bishops  of  Rom«,  and  the  duration  of  their 
government,  are  involved  in  inexplicable  confusion." 

t  Eusebius' words  are  :  "After  the  martyrdom  of  Paul  and  Peter,  Linus  was  the 
first  that  received  the  Episcopate  of  Rome.  Paul  makes  mention  of  him  in  his  Epistle 
from  Rome  to  Timothy,  in  the  address  at  the  close  of  the  Epistle,  saying,  'Eubulus 
and  Prudens,  and  Linus,  and  Claudia,  salute  thee.'  "  Ecc.  Ilisl.  Book  3,  Ch.  2.  This 
Chapter  is  entitled  "The  first  that  presided  over  the  Church  at  Rome,"  and  this  is  the 
whole  of  it . 


180  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

Episcopate  "after  the  martyrdom  of  both  Paul  and  Peter '?"     When 
all  the  historical  doctors  thus  disagree,  who  can  tell  any  thing  of  it  1 

At  the  same  time  it  should  not  be  forgotten,  that  while  Prelatists 
are  racking  their  brains  about  Linus'  ordination,  he  is  at  once  elbowed 
out  of  the  way  by  Clement,  whose  right  to  the  chair  instead  of  Linus, 
comes  certified  by  many  witnesses.  Who  then  ordained  Clement  ? 
Tertullian  says  he  was  ordained  by  Peter,  whom  Eusebius  puts  to 
"martyrdom"  long  before  Clement  could  have  occupied  the  chair,  as 
he  makes  both  Linus  and  Aneucletus  to  have  preceded  him  !  But 
waiving  all  this  mass  of  contradictions  as  to  the  ordiytation  of  the  first 
successor  of  Peter,  (and  the  same  confusion  attends  the  ordination 
of  the  others  who  are  said  to  have  followed,)  it  then  is  important  to 
know, — 

3.  Whether  these  "successors"  bear  the  other  four  requisite  marks 
which  can  alone  entitle  them  to  the  powers  of  Prelates,  viz  :  whether 
they  were,  first,  haptized  by  one  duly  authorized  ;  second,  confirmed 
by  an  Apostle,  or  Prelate  duly  consecrated;  third,  ordained  Deacon,  and 
fourth,  ordained  Priest  by  one  who  had  full  power  to  give  the  "shock 
Divine."  These  questions  must  all  be  settled  definitely  and  satisfac- 
torily, or  the  succession  cannot  be  proved.  Who  is  competent  to 
do  this  '?  History  gives  us  not  a  particle  of  evidence  from  which  we 
can  settle  these  points  with  regard  to  any  one  of  the  first  five  alleged 
successors  of  Peter.  Surely,  we  need  a  large  amount  of  Mr.  Per- 
cival's    "faith  !" 

But  laying  aside  all  the  five  requisite  qualifications  of  haptism, 
confirmation,  and  the  three  grades  of  ordination,  and  falling  back 
upon  the  simple  and  naked  question  as  to  the  identity  of  the  men 
who  were  the  successors  of  Peter,  or  rather  as  to  the  single  man 
who  first  succeeded  to  the  chair  in  which  it  is  assumed  that  Peter 
sat,  and  then  what  is  the  state  of  the  case  %  This  simple  point  as  we 
have  seen  is  involved  in  a  darkness  to  which  that  of  Egypt  would 
be  as  the  light  of  midday  !  And  yet,  the  "succession  is  evident  to 
every  one  who  chooses  to  investigate  it ;"  at  least,  so  says  Dr.  Hook. 
And  yet,  "the  truth  and  certainty  of  the  Episcopal  succession  are 
made  evident  by  the  testimony  of  many  witnesses  to  a  pnhlic  trans- 
action, which  is  made  matter  of  public  record;  "*  at  least,  so  says  the 
learned  antiquarian,  the  "Bishop  of  Tennessee. "f 

*  Discourses,  p.  65. 

t  Bishop  Otey  palpably  imposes  upon  those  readers  who  in  the  simplicity  of  their 
hearts  take  all  he  says  for  truih,  about  these  "■many  witnesses."  In  a  lame  endeaivor 
to  answer  some  objections  to  the  succession  he  says  :  "Letustlien  meet  them  on  iluse 


THE  APOSTOLICAL    SUCCESSION.  181 

Prom  all  that  has  now  been  exhibited,  it  must  be  evident  that 
positively  no  certainty  attends  the  most  laborious  researches  to  find 
the  very  hegmning  of  that  chain  which  binds  earth  to  heaven  through 
a  line  of  Prelates.  Leaving  out  of  the  question  Jive  essential  parti- 
cvHars  pertaining  to  each  case ;  each  of  which  ought  to  be  proved 
beyond  doubt,  and  not  one  of  which  can  be  ;  no  man  is  able  to 
identify  the  first  man  who  succeeded  Peter,  or  even  to  tell  whether 
Peter  himself  forms  the  first  link  in  the  chain.  This  is  plain  from 
what  history  does  say :  it  is  conceded  by  the  most  learned  of  all 
parties,  not  excepting  the  most  eminent  divines  of  the  Episcopal 
Church. 

II.     The  pretended   succession  has  been   broken,  at   divers 

TIMES,    AND    IN     DIVERS    WAYS. 

We  promised  to  show,  in  the  second  place,  that  although  there  is 
no  certainty  in  the  alleged  "unbroken  series  of  valid  ordinations" 
through  a  line  of  Prelates,  yet  that  there  is  a  positive  certainly  tliat 
the  pretended  line  has  been  hrol:en.  It  may,  indeed,  be  deemed  a 
Hibernicism  to  say  that  a  chain  has  been  sundered  which  never  had 
a  beginning  ;  a  line  cut  which  has  no  existence  ;  and  whether  it  be 
so  considered  or  not,  the  present  may  be  truly  deemed  a  work  of 
supererogation,  for  the  onus  prohandi  in  this  whole  matter  rests  upon 
our  opponents,  who  positively  allege  that  an  "unbroken  line"  does 
exist,  can  be  proved,  and  "is  evident  to  every  oiie  vvho  chooses  to 
investigate  it."  They  are  bound  therefore  to  prove  it  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt,  and  until  they  do  this  we  might  sit  down  quietly. 
But  they  have  not  done  it.  Neither  can  they  do  it,  for  we  have 
examined  the  very  witnesses  upon  which  they  rely  to  prove  it,  and 
find  the  evidence  so  palpably  conflicting  that  it  is  impossible  to  tell 
who  is  right ;  and  besides,  from  the  circumstances  under  which  the 

grounds  and  consider  these  their  strong  r'esisons.  1.  TAe  succession  is  incapable  of  proof . 
Is  the  testimony  of  Clement,  Ignatius,  Irenaeiis,  Tertullian,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Eusebiu?, 
Ambrose,  Jerome,  Austin  and  others,  sufficient  to  prove  the  autlienticity  and  uncor- 
rupted  preservation  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  in  their  respective  ages  ?  Then 
why  is  their  testimony  to  be  rejected  when  \\,  equally  proves  the  establishment  and  uni- 
versal prevalence  of  Episcopacy?" — Discourses,  p.  63.  Now  if  the  Bishop's  question 
has  any  point  in  it,  it  is  intended  to  meet  and  answer  the  objection  which  he  is  can- 
vassing, that  "the  succession  is  incapable  of  proof.''  What  inference,  then,  does  he 
design  the  reader  shall  draw  from  this  question  about  the  "many  witnesses"  here  named? 
Evidently  this,  that  t]ie\j  all  testify  alike  on  all  those  points  which  are  material  to  prov- 
ing the  succession  !  But  is  this  true?  The  answer  is  furnished  in  what  we  have  al- 
rea<ly  exhibited.  Bishop  Oiey  hints  at  no  diversity  in  their  testimony,  and  evidently 
intends  the  impression  that  there  is  none !  Such  ia  his  imposition  upon  his  readers. 
We  can  only  pity  his  recklessness  and  their  credulity. 

Y 


182  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

witnesses  wrote,  it  is  not  possible  to  tell,  but  exceedingly  doubtful, 
whether  any  one  of  them  is  right.  Even  the  witnesses  themselves 
say  that  the  materials  upon  which  they  were  obliged  to  rely  were 
of  a  doubtful  character.  We  therefore,  to  use  the  softest  terms, 
deem  the  whole  scheme  doomed  to  irretrievable  doubt  and  uncertainty. 
We  might  then  rest  here,  for  the  life  of  the  succession,  by  its  friends, 
is  staked  upon  absolute  certainty,  and  with  such  clearness  that  "any 
one  may  investigate  it."  Having  shown  its  positive  uncertainty,  we 
have  destroyed  it,  root  and  branch.  But  our  opponents  seem  not 
satisfied  with  this.  We  are  challenged  to  show  where  it  has  been 
broken  !*  Though  it  is  entirely  a  work  of  supererogation,  we  are 
willing  to  gratify  them,  and  at  the  risk  of  being  charged  with  com- 
mitting an  "Irish  bull,"  we  agree  to  show,  that  that  which  never 
had  a  beginning  has  had  several  endings.  Out  of  many  cases,  we 
present  only  a  few  as  a  specimen,  selected  at  random. 

First  Case — A  Bishop  of  Rome  witliout  any  Episcopal  consecra- 
tion whatever. — According  to  Eusebius  the  historian,  (one  of  Bish- 
op Otey's  witnesses,)  Fabianus  was  elevated  to  the  Bishopric  of 
Rome,  without  any  ordination  tohatever  to  the  Episcopal  office.  Eu- 
sebius states  the  case  at  length  in  the  29th  chapter  of  his  Ecclesias- 
tical History.  From  this  case,  among  others,  Rev.  William  Goode, 
of  the  Church  of  England,  in  opposing  the  Oxford  divines,  argues 
against  "the  essential  necessity"  of  the  "Episcopal  consecration  of 
all  Bishops."  He  remarks  :  "Such,  I  think,  is  afforded  by  the 
account  we  have  in  Eusebius  of  the  appointment  of  Fabianus  to  the 
Bishopric  of  Rome  ;  for  the  assembly  that  met  to  elect  a  Bishop, 
having  fixed  upon  him,  placed   him  at  once   on  the  Epicopal  throne, 

(a{jii%%7jT!oii  sriif  I'ov    ^poj'o*'   tTjg  tfti.sxoft'rji  Xajiovta?  a/vtov    iTti^^swai,,^   which 

seems  to  me  irreconcilable  with  the  notion  of  the  essential  necessity 
of  Episcopal  consecration  to  have  entitled  him  to  the  Episcopal  seat ; 
Jbr  he  tvas  installed  in  it  without  any  such  consecration."!  That 
no  possible  exception  could  be  taken,  we  have  given  this  case  in  the 
words  of  a  distinguished  Prelatist.  According  to  Mr.  Goode's  un- 
derstanding of  Eusebius,  here  was  a  man  constituted  "Bishop  of 
Rome,"  without  any  consecration  whatever  !  'Tis  true,  Mr.  Goode 
argues  from  this  against  the  "essential  necessity"  of  "Episcopal  con 

*  "If  the  rejectors  of  Episcopacy,"  says  Bishop  Otey,  "will  take  any  of  these  lists, 
( that  at  Canterbury,  at  Aries  or  Lyons  in  France,  or  at  Rome,  or  at  Constantinople,) 
and  show  where  it  is  defective,  ...  we  shall  then  have  before  us  a  matter  admitting 
of  discussion." — Discourses,  p.  66. 

t  Goode's  Divine  Rule  of  Faith  and  Practice. 


THE  APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION.  183 

secratlon  of  all  Bishops  ;"  but  this  is  a  poor  come  off.  This  plea  of 
"necessity"  will  not  mend  the  chain,  nor  bridge  this  gulf.  Here  is 
a  man,  U2)ori  prelatical  admission,  standing  in  the  direct  line  of  the 
succession  between  "Peter  or  Paul,"  and  the  Prelates  of  the  Eng- 
lish and  American  Churches,  wJio  never  had  any  Episcopal  ordination! 
We  are  challenged  by  Bishop  Otey  to  "take  any  of  these  lists  and 
show  where  it  is  defective."  Now  here  is  a  small  "defect ;"  and  we 
call  «pon  the  "Bishop  of  Tennessee"  to  mend  the  chain  at  this  point, 
or  give  up  his  arrogant  boasting  and  acknowledge  that  the  "succes- 
sion"  is  a  nullity.* 

Second  Case — A  Bishop  of  Rome  who  was  repeatedly  declared  in 
Council  to  he  no  BisJiop,  gave  orders  to  an  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury.— Formosus,  as  Bishop  of  Rome,  consecrated  Plegmund  to  the 
Archbishopric  of  Canterbury,  in  England  ;  in  virtue  of  which,  Pleg- 
mund ordained  many  of  the  English  Prelates  :  so  says  Godwin.  But 
were  the  orders  of  Formosus  valid  ]  Courayer,  a  learned  Roman 
Catholic,  in  his  remai'ks  on  "the  ordinations  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land," says  :  "  Every  body  knows  the  history  of  Pope  Formosus. 
Stephen  VII,  at  the  head  of  his  Council,  having  declared  the 
ordinations  which  he  administered  void,  caused  those  to  be  re-or- 
dained whom  he  had  ordered.  Sergius  III  renewed  all  that  Stephen 
had  done  against  Formosus,  and  caused  his  ordinations  to  be  declared 
null  over  again."  Here,  then,  was  a  pretended  Bishop  of  Rome, 
repeatedly  declared  in  Council  to  be  no  Bishop,  and  his  "ordinations" 
to  be  "null  and  void  ;"  yet  he  forms  one  of  this  "unbroken  line,"  and 
gave  false  orders  to  the   Primate  of  the  English  Church,  which  Pri- 

*  Many  instances  might  be  shown  where  mere  laymen  were  directly  advanced  to  the 
Episcopate.  Bingham,  a  Prelatist,  says  :  "It  was  not  reckoned  any  breach  of  canon  to 
make  a  layman  Bishop,  when  Providence  seemed  first  to  grant  a  dispensation  by  directing 
the  Church  to  be  unanimous  in  the  choice  of  such  a  person."  All  the  qualifications,  then, 
misht  be  dispensed  with,  if  only  the  people  were  "unanimous  in  the  choice!"  How  many 
such  unfledged  Prelates  existed  in  the  various  Sees,  may  be  imagined  !  According  to 
Bingham,  also,  persons  were  elected  Bishops,  evenbefore  their  baptism  !  He  says  Am- 
brose of  Milan,  and  Eusebius  of  Cesarea  m  Cappadocia,  were  chosen  Bishops  while  they 
were  but  catechumens.  He  also  mentions  that  Cyprian  was  elected  Bishop  of  Carthage 
while  yet  a  layman.  The  convei-sion  of  a  layman  into  a  Bishop  was  a  matter  of  such 
frequent  occurrence,  that  in  the  5th  century,  Pope  Celestine  interfered  to  put  an  end 
to  these  sudden  promotions.  Du  Pin  says:  "St-  Celestine  complains  that  laymen 
were  made  Bishops,  not  having  passed  through  the  inferior  orders."  Again:  "Upon 
this  ground  he  forbids  them  (the  Bishops  of  Apulia  and  Calabiial  to  ordain  such  laymen 
Bishops  as  the  people  demand."  How  far  these  irregularities  had  spread,  would  be  im  • 
p-ossibie  to  tell.  Far  enough,  however,  wc  should  suppose,  to  lay  a  little  restraint  upon 
the  boasting  of  modern  Prelates. 


184  rUELACY   EXAMINED. 

mate  was  never  re-ordained,  hut  m  virtue  of  his  false  orders  continued 
to  ordain  many  of  the  English  Prelates  for  twenty-six  years  ! — for 
proof  of  which  see  Godwin,  and  other  historians.  Indeed,  this  false 
Prelate,  Plegmund,  seems  to  have  had  an  uncommon  share  of  ordain- 
ing to  do  about  this  time.  Godwin  says  :  "The  most  memorable 
action  of  this  Archbishop  is,  that  the  yeere  905,  he  consecrated  sex:en 
Bishops  in  one  day  !"  Dr.  Inett,  of  the  Church  of  England,  says 
in  his  History  of  the  English  Church:  "There  is  ground  to  think 
there  is  truth  in  what  is  said  of  the  erecting  new  Bishoprics  about 
this  time,  and  the  consecration  of  seven  Bishops  in  one  day,  by 
Plegmund,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in  the  beginning  of  King 
Edward's  reign," 

Now  according  to  these  indisputable  facts,  the  "unbroken  line" 
must  have  been  completely  destroyed  in  many  of  the  English  Dioceses, 
by  the  false  orders  given  by  Plegmund,  whose  own  orders  were 
false!  And  yet,  we  are  gravely  challenged  to  "show  where"  the  suc- 
cession is  "defective  P* 

Third  Case — ScJiisms  among  the  Bishops  of  Rome. — Alexander  III, 
as  Bishop  of  Rome,  consecrated  Richard  to  the  Archbishopric  of  Can- 
terbury. But  according  to  Panvinius,  "one  of  the  Pope's  most  de- 
voted biographer's,"  the  t^venty-fourth  schism  in  the  Popedom  was 
between  Alexander  III  and  Victor  VII.  According  to  Platina,  Alex- 
ander "held  his  chair  by  sedition,  war,  and  hloodshed^  Richard  of 
the  English  Church  received  his  false  orders  from  this  Alexander, 
and  continued  to  give  the  same  to  the  Prelates  of  England  !  What 
an  "unbroken  series  of  valid  ordinations  !" 

It  has  been  sometimes  said  by  our  opponents,  that  "the  plurality 
of  Popes  does  not  in  the  least  prejudice  the  succession  of  ordina- 
tion," and  that  "the  same  person  who  is  not  a  rightful  Pope,  may 
yet  be  a  rightful  Bishop  ;  and  consequently,  may  have  a  just  right 
to  exercise  the  power  of  ordination,  though  he  may  not  have  a  just 
right  to  exercise  the  Papal  authority."  And  thus  our  opponents,  by 
the  mouth  of  Dr.  Wells,  endeavor  to  get  over  the  difficulties  cf 
schism  among  the  Bishops  of  Rome.  In  reply  to  this,  let  Prelatists 
bear  in  mind  the  following  facts  : 

1.  The  translation  of  Bishops  from  one  See  to  another  was  pro- 
hibited by  the  Council  of  Nice,  canon  15 ;  by  the  Council  of  An- 
tioch,  canon  21 ;  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  canon  5  ;  and  by 
several  other  Councils.  This,  therefore,  as  the  lata  of  the  Church, 
would  prevent  any  one,  previously  a  Bishop,  from  being  elected 
Bishop  or  Pope  of  Rome. 


THE  APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION.  185 

2.  For  nearly  a  thousand  years,  according  to  standard  writei's,  it 
does  not  appear,  from  the  facts,  that  any  one,  'previously  a  Bishop, 
was  elected  Bishop  of  Rome.  When,  therefore,  an  individual  was 
elected  Pope,  he  was  elected  Bishop  of  Rome  :  and  Pope  and  Bishop, 
as  regards  the  imcumbents  of  that  See,  may  be  deemed  the  same  in 
ecclesiastical  matters. 

3.  During  this  period  of  a  thousand  years,  there  had  been  one 
hundred  Bishops  or  Popes  of  Rome,  and  thirteen  schisms  in  the 
Popedom  ;  that  is,  there  had  been  thirteen  times,  two  or  three  pre- 
tenders, at  the  same  time,  to  the  same  chair  or  Bishopric.  The  man, 
therefore,  who  was  a  usurper  as  Pope,  was  no  Bishop  ;  and  still, 
the  "succession,"  so  far  as  it  has  any  life  at  all  during  this  long 
period,  runs  through  these  numerous  usurpers  and  murderers  !* 

TouRTH  Case — More  Schisms. — Gregory  VII,  as  Bishop  of  Rome, 
ordained  Henry  Chichley  to  the  Archbishopric  of  Canterbury.  Ac- 
cording to  Godwin,  the  consecration  of  Chichley  by  the  hands  of 
Gregory  is  even  put  into  his  epitaph.t  Gregory  XII  was  one  of 
three  pretenders  to  the  Bisohpric  of  Rome  ;  and  to   end  this  schism 

*To  give  the  reader  some  idea  oi'  prelatical  manners  in  the  12th  century,  we  quote 
from  Godwin  a  short  account  of  this  Richard  and  his  competitor  :  "The  olde  quarrel  1 
chaunced  to  bee  renued  betweene  these  two  Archbishops  [of  Canterbury  and  Yorit,]  con- 
cerning the  Primacy,  and  one  Hugocio  the  Pope's  Legate  comming  into  England,  both 
of  tlicm  requested  him  to  heare  and  judge  this  con iroversie  betweene  them.  Upon  this 
and  other  occasions,  a  Convocation  was  summoned  at  Westminster,  where  was  a  stately 
throne  provided  for  the  Legate.  At  the  time  appointed  the  Legate  came  and  took  his 
place,  and  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  sate  him  downe  next  unto  the  Legate  upon 
the  right  hand.  After  this,  in  came  Roger,  Archbishop  of  Yorke,  and  would  needes 
have  displaced  Canterbury,  to  sit  above  him  :  that,  when  the  other  would  not  suffer, 
he  sate  downe  in  his  lap\  The  other  Bishops  present  amazed  at  this  strange  behaviour  of 
the  Archbishop  of  Yorke,  cried  out  all  upon  him,  the  Archbishop  of  Camerburie's  men 
by  violence  drew  the  other  out  of  his  ill  chosen  place,  threw  him  down,  tare  his  robes 
almost  from  his  backe,  trode  upon  him,  beat  him,  and  used  him  so  despitefully,  as  the 
Legate,  whether  for  shame  or  for  doubt  what  might  happen  to  himself  m  such  a  tumult, 
got  him  out  and  went  his  way  The  Archbishop  of  Yorke,  all  ragged  as  he  was,  bloudy 
and  dusty,  went  to  the  Kmg,  who  first  was  angry,  but  when  he  heard  the  truth, 
laughed  merrily  at  it  and  said  he  was  well  enough  served.  Much  adoo  there  was  longafter 
at  Rome  about  this  and  the  old  controversie  ;  the  end  whereof  at  last  was,  that  much 
money  was  spent  and  neither  party  ever  a  whit  the  neerer." 

t  Speaking  of  his  "toombe,"  Godwin  says :  "On  it  I  find  engraven  this  epitaph  :— 
'Hie  jacet  Henr.  Chicheley,  LI.  Doctor  quondam  Cancellarius  Sarum,  qui  anno  sep- 
timo  fienr  .4.  Regis  ad  Gregorium  Papam  12.  in  Ambassiato  transmissus,  in  civitate 
Senensi  per  manusejusdem  Papa  in  Episcopum  Meneunsem  consecratus  est  .  Hie  etiam 
Henricua  anno  2  Ilenr.  5.  Regis,  in  hac  sanctaecclesia  in  Archiepiscopum  postulatus  et 
a  Joanne  Papa  23  ad  eandem  translatus,  qui  obiit  anno  dom.  1443.  mensis  Apr.  die  12. 

"Coetus  sanctorum  concorditer  iste  precetur, 

"Ut  Deus  ipsorum  meritissibi  propicietur.'  " 


186  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

the  Council  of  Constance  was  called.  Gregory  was  deposed,  and 
declared  by  the  Council  to  be  no  Bishop  at  all,  and  all  his  acts 
were  atmullcd,  while  John,  one  of  his  competitors,  kept  the  chair. 
Yet  Chichley  was  ordained  by  this  Gregory,  received  the  "succes- 
sion" from  him,  and  continued  to  communicate  these  false  orders  to 
the  English  Bishops  and  Archbishoj)s,  even  in  the  15th  century,  for 
the  space  of  twenty-nine  years  !  Is  there  anything  "defective"  here] 
What  a  triumphant  "unbroken  series  of  valid  ordinations  !  !  !" 

We  might  extend  this  list  of  gaps  in  the  succession  of  the  Bish- 
hops  of  Rome,  but  the  above  cases  will  serve  as  a  specimen.  Be  it 
remembered,  that  Panvinius  pronounces  the  contest  between  Alex- 
ander III  and  Victor  IV  (case  third  above)  the  twenty-fourth 
schism  in  the  Popedom  !  We  leave  the  Romish  Bishops  to  notice 
more  recent  cases  among  the  English. 

Fifth  Case — An  English  Prelate  consecrated  by  an  Archdeacon  only! 
According  to  Godwin,  it  appears  that  on  one  occasion  the  Bishop  of 
Norwich,  England,  was  ordained  hy  an  Archdeacon.  In  his  biography 
of  Henry  Spencer,  the  20th  Bishop  of  Norwich,  when  speaking  of 
Thomas  Percy,  Spencer's  predecessor,  he  says  :  "  The  fame  of  his 
death  swiftly  flying  beyond  the  seas,  came  unto  the  eares  of  one  Spen- 
cer, a  gentleman  greatly  esteemed  for  his  valour  and  skill  in  martiall 
affaires,  that  served  the  Pope  at  that  time  in  his  warres  :  of  him  with 
small  intreaty,  he  obtained  this  dignity  for  a  brother  of  his  named 
Henry,  a  man  of  his  owne  profession,  which  of  a  souldier  being 
made  a  Bishop,  came  into  England,  and  March  IG,  1370,  was  conse- 
crate in  his  owne  Church,  hy  the  Archdeacon  of  Norwich.  Changing 
then  his  vesture,  but  not  his  conditions,  in  what  manner  of  life  he 
spent  his  youth  in  the  same  he  most  delighted  even  in  his  waxing 
years.  And  being  a  better  Butcher  than  a  Shepherd,  hee  procured 
the  Pope^s  authority  for  leuying  an  army,  which,  (notwithstanding 
the  king's  commandment  to  the  contrary,  for  disobeying  whereof  his 
temporalities  after  returne  were  detained  from  him  2  whole  yeares,) 
he  transported  into  the  low  Countries,  the  year  1383."  Here  is  an- 
other of  the  "  falsely  so  called"  successors  of  the  Apostles  who  had 
Episcopal  consecration  from  an  Archdeacon  only  !  Be  it  remem- 
bered, that  Whateley  says  :  ^'The  poisonous  taint  of  informality,  if  it 
once  creep  in  undetected,  will  spread  the  infection  of  nullity  to  an 
indefinite  and  irremediahle  extent^ 

Sixth  Case — English  Prelates  ordained  hy  Scottish  Preshyters. 
We  are  informed  on  the  authority  of  Bede,  an  English  ecclesiastical 


THE  APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION.  187 

historian  whom  Prelatists  will  not  scorn,  that  many  of  the  English  Pre- 
lates in  the  7th  century,  tocre  ordained  hy  Scottish  Preshyt<'rs.  He 
says  :  "That  at  the  request  of  Oswald,  King  of  Northumberland, 
certain  Preshyters  came  from  Scotland  into  England,  and  ordained 
Bishops  ;  that  the  Abbot  and  other  Presbyters  of  the  island  of  Hy, 
sent  Aidan  for  this  express  purpose,  declaring  him  to  be  woithy  of 
the  office  of  Bishop,  and  that  he  ought  to  be  sent  to  instruct  the 
unbelieving  and  the  unlearned."  He  iiforms  us  that  "those  Pres- 
byters ordained  him,  and  sent  him  to  England  on  this  errand  ;  and 
that  Finan,  sent  from  the  same  monastery  in  the  same  island,  suc- 
ceeded him  in  the  Episcopal  office,  after  having  been  ordained  by 
the  Scottish  Presbyters^  Upon  this  testimony  of  Bede,  the  ven- 
erable and  worthy  Richard  Baxter  remarks  :  "You  will  find  that  the 
English  had  a  succession  of  Bishops  by  the  Scottish  Presbyter" s  ordi- 
nation ;  and  there  is  no  mention  in  Bede,  of  any  dislike  or  scruple 
of  the  lawfulness  of  this  course.  The  learned  Doddridge,"  conti- 
nues Baxter,  "refers  us  to  Bede  and  Jones,  to  substantiate  the  fact, 
that  *in  the  year  668,  the  successors  of  Austin,  the  monk  who  came 
over  A.  D.  596,  being  almost  extinct,  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the 
English  Bishops  loere  of  Scottish  ordination,  by  Aidan  and  Finan,  who 
came  out  of  the  Culdee  monastery  of  Columbanus,  and  were  no  more 
titan  Presbyters.^  And  is  it  verily  so,"  asks  Baxter,  "that  the  Episcopal 
blood  was  thus  early  and  extensively  contaminated  in  England  \  Is 
it  verily  so,  that  when  the  effects  of  pious  Austin's  labors  had  become 
almost  imperceptible,  the  sinking  Church  was  revived  again,  hy  send- 
ing to  Scotland  for  Presbyters  to  come  and  ordain  a  multitude  of  Bish- 
ops 1  Then  it  is  verily  a  fact,  that  Presbyterian  ordination  is  one 
of  the  sturdiest  pillars  that  support  the  vast  fabric  of  the  Church 
of  England.  No  matter  if  only  ten  Bishops  were  thus  ordained,  the 
contamination,  (if  it  be  one,)  having  been  imparted  more  than  eleven 
hundred  years  ago,  has  had  a  long  time  to  diffiise  itself,  and  doubtless  has 
diffused  itself  so  extensively  from  Bishop  to  Bishop,  that  not  a  single 
Prelate  in  Great  Britain  can  prove  that  he  has  escaped  the  infection  ! 
For  what  one  of  them  can  tell,  if  he  was  not  consecrated  by  Bishops, 
and  they  by  other  Bishops,  to  whom  all  the  ordaining  power  they 
ever  had,  was  transmitted  from  the  Presbyters  of  Scotland  ?  But 
this  is  not  the  whole  of  the  evil.  As  no  one  Bishop  can  trace  his 
Episcopal  pedigree  farther  back,  perhaps,  than  two  or  three  cen- 
tui'ies,  so  he  cannot  certainly  know,  that  any  Presbyter,  on  whose 
head  he   has  imposed  hands,  has  received  from  him  any  thing  more 


188  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

than  Presbyterian  ordination.  Nor  is  this  all  the  evil.  The  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Bishops  and  Presbyters  in  America  are  in  the  same 
plight ;  for  all  their  authority  came  from  England.  But  as  the 
English  Bishops  who  gave  it  to  them,  could  not  then,  and  cannot  now^, 
certainly  tell  w^hence  it  came,  so  who  knows  but  all  the  Episcopal 
clergy  in  the  United  States  of  America,  are  originally  indebted  to 
the  hands  of  Elder  Aidan  and  Elder  Finan  for  all  their  ministerial 
powers  ?  I  tremble  for  an  Protestant  Episcopal  Churches  on  both 
continents,   if  Presbyterian,  orders  he  not  valid  and  scriptural." 

This  plain  account  needs  no  comment.  If  Bede  is  to  be  credited, 
the  first  ecclesiastical  historian  of  Great  Britain,  (and  Bishop  Otey 
cites  him,  and  Prelatists  generally,)  then  after  all  the  dust  and  smoke 
raised  about  "an  unbroken  series  of  valid  ordinations,"  the  whole 
fabric  of  Prelacy  has  for  its  corner  stone  Freshyterian  ordination 
only  ! — and  some  of  the  ends  of  "succession's  chain,"  which  may  be 
seen  flying  all  through  mid-heaven,  have  no  better  hook  and  staple 
than  the  "Scottish  Presbyters  !" — '^Farturiunt  mantes"  Sfc. 

Seventh  Case — An  Archbishop  of  Canterbuty  consecrated  hy  ejected 
Prelates. — The  invalidity  of  Archbishop  Parker's  consecration,  (which 
case  forms  the  trunk  of  the  present  English  orders,)  has  been  fre- 
quently exposed.  It  amounts  to  this — that  he  was  consecrated  by 
those  who  once  ^'had  been"  Bishops,  but  who  had  been  previously 
deprived  by  Queen  Mary,  and  had  not  been  restored  !  Godwin  con- 
firms this  account,  as  follows  :  "The  Archbishopricke  left  voide  by  the 
death  of  Cardinall  Poole,  this  Mathew  Parker  then  Dr.  of  Divinitie, 
sometime  Deane  of  Lincolne,  and  Master  of  Corpus  Christi  Colledge 
in  Cambridge,  (as  aforesaid,)  was  thought  meetest  for  that  high  place 
and  preferment.  He  was  consecrate  thereunto,  December,  17,  1559, 
by  the  Bishoppes  that  lately  had  been  of  Bath,  Exceter,  Chichester 
and  Bedford,  to  wit,  W.  Barlow,  Miles  Coverdale,  Jo.  Scory,  and 
John  Hodgekins  Suffragan  of  Bedford ;  helde  the  same  fifteene 
yeeres  and  five  monethes,  and  deceased  May  17,  1575,  beeing  seven- 
ty-two yeeres  of  age."  To  show  further,  that  the  consecration  of 
Parker  was  not  even  regarded,  at  the  time,  or  very  soon  after,  as  all 
right,  an  Act  of  Parliament  was  passed  to  this  effect :  "That  though 
these  Bishops  (referring  to  Parker  and  \he  fourteen  whom  he  conse- 
crated, the  validity  of  whose  ordination  like  that  of  his  own  waa 
denied  and  disputed,)  were  ordained  contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  Church, 
yet  they  were  ordained  according  to  the  laws  of  the  land  ;  and  that 
tliis  was  sufficient  to  wairant  the  ordination,  because  these  laws  had 


THE  APOSTOLICAL    SUCCESSION.  189 

given  authority  to  the  Queen  to  dispense  with  any  repugnant  laws 
of  the  Church."  So,  the  whole  validity  of  present  English  orders, 
and  of  course  in  the  American  Episcopal  Church  too,  hanging  as  they 
do  upon  the  propriety  of  Parker's  consecration,  (as  he  immediately 
proceeded  to  fill  many  of  the  Sees  in  the  English  Church,)  depends 
not  upon  the  authority  of  the  "Lord  of  lords,"  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  but  upon  the  authority  of  the  Lords  and  Comraons  of'  the 
British  Parliament  I  What  a  triumphant  succession,  directly  "from 
Peter  or  Paul,"  as  Dr.  Hook  says — or  from — Queen  Elizabeth  and 
her  Parliament  !  !,* 

Eighth  Case — Boys' consecrated  Prelates. — To  go  back  a  little, 
we  maintain  that  this  pretended  succession  must  nave  been  frequently 
sundered,  (on  the  ground  of  the  canons  and  principles  of  Prelatists,) 
hy  the  promotion  to  the  Episcopal  office  of  Boys  and  striplings,  and 
suckling  infants  1  According  to  Foxe,  an  English  historian,  in  a 
general  Council  before  the  Emperor  Otho  I,  the  following  objections 
were  articled  against  Pope  John  XH,  Bishop  of  Rome  :  "That  he 
never  said  his  service  ;  that  in  saying  mass  he  did  not  communicate  ; 
that  he  ordained  Deacons  in  a  stable  ;  that  playing  at  dice  he  called 
for  the  Devil  to  help  ;  that  for  money  he  made  boys  Bishops  ;  that 
he  committed  adultery  ;  that  he  put  out  the  eyes  of  Bishop  Benedict ; 
that  he  caused  houses  to  be  set  on  fire  ;  that  he  brake  open  houses  ; 
that  he  drank  to  the  Devil ;  that  he  never  crossed  himself,"  &c.,  &c. 
Many  cases  of  hoys  being  ordained  Bishops  occurred  during  the  dark 
ages  ;  and  even  Bishops  of  Rome,  were  consecrated  when  mere 
striplings.  Thus,  according  to  Dr.  Inett  of  the  English  Church, 
"Benedict  IX,  when  a  boy  of  about  ten  or  twelve  years  of  age,"  was 
chosen  Pope,  and  though  a  most  profligate  lad,  he  continued  for 
nearly  eleven  years  to  discharge  "all  the  functions  imcumbent  on  a 
Bishop  of  Rome." 

Here,  then,  are  children,  scarcely  out  of  the  nursery,  filling  places 
in  this  "unbroken"  line  ! — striplings,  who  have  no  authority  to  act 
for  themselves  in  civil  matters,  and  according  to  all  canons  and  correct 
principles,    absolutely  none  to  act  as  ministers  of  religion  !     And  yet, 

*  Calmer,  a  learned  Church  of  England  divine,  in  answer  to  the  Roman'CathoUc 
Doctor  Wiseman's  objections  to  Parker's  consecration,  justifies  the  irregularity  on  the 
ground  of  "necessity,"  as  follows:  "We  must  here  say,  that  the  present  case  was  one 
where  the  urgent  necessities  of  the  Church  afforded  a  perfectly  valid  dispensation  from 
the  strictness  of  the  canon."  We  cannot  see,  however,  for  the  life  of  U3,  how  the 
"necessity"  of  using  a  confessedly  broken  chain,  can  so  mend  it  as  to  make  out  an  "un- 
broken succession!" 

Z 


190 


PRELACY    EXAMIIVED. 


these  precocious  hahes  form  links  in  the  Prelatico- Apostolical  succes- 
sion,, standing  directly  between  modern  Prelates  and  "  Peter  or 
Paul !  !" 

We  find,  indeed,  some  youthful  Bishops  in  later  times  in  England. 
In  giving  an  account  of  George  Neuill,  a  Bishop  of  Exeter,  Godwin 
says :  "Richard  Neuill,  that  great  Earl  of  Warwick,  that  set  up  and 
pulled  down  Kings  at  his  pleasure,  advanced  unto  great  and  high 
places,  George  Neuill,  his  brother,  being  yet  a  very  young  man.  *  * 
*****  ]3y  i^ig  means  he  was  consecrate  Bishop  of  Exeter, 
the  25th  of  November  1455,  at  what  time  he  was  not  fully  twenty 
years  of  age."*  Take  one  more  case.  Dr.  Croly,  a  living  divine 
of  the  English  Church,  in  his  "Life  and  Times  of  George  IV," 
speaking  of  a  royal /eie  says  :  "The  Duke  of  York,  five  years  old, 

*  To  give  the  reader  a  specimen  of  prelalical  feasting  in  the  olden  time  we  take  the 
following  extract  from  an  account  of  the  dinner  given  at  the  subsequent  induction  of 
Neuill  to  the  Archbishopric  of  York,  as  recorded  by  Godwin :  "  The  feast  that  was 
made  at  this  man's  installation,  was  exceedingly  great,  and  sucn  as  our  age  hath  seMjm 
(I  will  not  say  never)  seen.  And  therefore  I  have  not  thought  it  amiss  to  impart  to  the 
reader  an  ancient  note  that  1  have  lit  upon,  describing  the  particulars  of  the  tame. 

"  THE   PUOVISION   FOR  THE   SAID  FEAST. 

Imprimis  wheat,  -        quarters,  300 

Ale,  ....  tuns,  300 

Wine,  ....  tuns,  104 
Ipocras,     -  -  -  -       1  pipe. 

Oxen,         ....  80 

Wilde  Bulls,  ...  6 

Muttons,  ....  1,004 
Veales,       -  -  -  .  300 

Porkes,      -  -  .  -  '         300 

Geese,  ....  3,000 
Capons,  ....  2,300 
Pigges,       -  .  -  .         2,000 

Peacocks,  -  -  .  .  loo 

Cranes,       ....  200 

Kiddes,       ....  200 

Chickens,  ....  2,000 
Pigeons,     -  -  .  .        4,000 

Conies,       -  .  .  .        4,000 

Bitters,       -  •  -  -  204 

Malards  and  Teales,         -  -        4,000 

Hearnsewes,  -  •  -  400 

Fesants,     -  -  .  .  200 

Then  follow  the  names  of  sundry  of  the  nobility  from  the  Earl  of  War  wick  down, 
acting  with  sundry  of  the  Bishops,  Abbots,  &c.,  as  "  great  officers  serving  at  the  said 
feast;  "  and  a  long  and  tedious  account  of  the  tables,  courses,  &c.  It  seems  that  there 
were  employed  "chief  cookes,  62— necessary  servants  to  the  kitchen  and  broach  turners* 
515." 


Partridges, 

500 

Plovers,      .           .           .            . 

400 

Woodcockes, 

400 

Curlewes,  .           .           .           . 

100 

Quayles,    -            .            .            . 

100 

Egrets, 

1,000 

Rees, 

200 

Harts,      i 

Bucks,  ■  > 

100  and  od 

Roes,       J 

Pastries  of  Venison,  colde, 

4,000 

Pastries  of  Venison,  bote, 

1,500 

Dishes  of  Jelly,  pacted,    - 

1,000 

Plaine  dishes  of  Jelly 

4,000 

Cold  Tarts,  baken, 

4,000 

Colde  Custards, 

4,000 

Custards  hote. 

2,000 

Pykes, 

300 

Breames,    - 

300 

Porposes     -           -           » 

4 

Scales,        w           X          .,          , 

8" 

THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  191 

as  Bishop  of  Osnaburgh,  was  in  blue  and  gold,  with  the  insignia 
of  the  Bath.  His  royal  highness  had  been  elected  Bishop  of  Osna- 
burgh on  the  27th  of  February  1764  ;  and  having  been  born  on  the 
16th  of  August,  1763,  he  was  exactly  six  montJis  and  ten  days  old  when 
Tie  became  a  BisJiop  /"  Ho  !  ye  Apostolical  successors  !  !  Behold 
your  spiritual  paternity,  in  these  "babes  and  sucklings  !  !  !" 

Ninth  Case — Simony  of  the  Romayi  and  English  Prelates. — We 
maintain  that  the  succession  has  been  sr.ndered  into  ten  thousand 
fragments  by  the  notorious  Simony  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome  and  the 
Bishops  of  England.  Our  position  is  based  upon  the  fact,  that  it  is 
decreed  in  many  ancient  Canons,  that  Simony  virtually  invalidates  the 
ordination  of  him  who  by  such  means  procures  his  orders,  and 
renders  null  all  his  ordaining  acts.  Bishop  Otey,  and  Prelatists  gener- 
ally, refer  to  what  they  call  the  "Apostolical  Canons,"  with  appro- 
bation. They  will  not  blame  lis  for  using  them  to  a  good  purpose. 
Canon  No.  22,  enacts  :  "If  any  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon,  obtain 
his  dignity  l>y  money,  let  him,  and  him  who  ordained  him,  he 
deposed,  and  wholly  cut  off  from  commiinion,  as  Simon  Magus 
was  by  Peter."*  In  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  A.  D.  451, 
(  600  Bishops  present,)  Canon  2,  enacts  :  "If  any  Bishop  ordain 
for  money,  and  make  a  market  of  the  unvendible  grace,  and  per- 
form the  ordination  of  a  Bishop,  village  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon, 
or  of  any  one  listed  in  the  clergy,  for  gain,  let  him  that  is  ordained 
be  never  the  better  for  his  ordination.^*  Canon  22  of  the  Council  of 
Constantinople  or  Trullus,  A.  D.  683,  decrees  :  "That  they  who  are 
ordained  for  money,  be  deposed,  and  the  Bishop  who  ordained  them.'" 
The  Canon  Law,  as  cited  by  Gratian  in  the  12th  century,  says  : 
"There  is  no  poioer  in  ordination,  where  buying  and  selling  prevail." 
The  Council  of  Placentina,  A.  D.  1095,  Canon  2,  decrees  :  "What- 
ever holy  orders  are  obtained  by  money,  either  given  or  promised  to 
be  given,  we  declare  that  they  were  null  from  the  beginning,  and 
never  had  any  validity.''  In  the  40th  Canon  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, simony  is  declared  to  be  "a  detestable  sin  and  execrable  before 
God,"  (fee. ;  and  every  Bishop  and  Priest,  before  admitted  to  orders  is 
obliged  to  take  the  following  oath  :  "I  do  swear  that  I  have  made  no 
simoniacal  payment,  contract,  or  promise,  directly  or  indirectly  by  my- 
self or  other,  to  my  knowledge  or  with  my  consent,  to  any  person 
or  persons  whatever,  for  or  concerning  the  procuring  and  obtaining  of 
this  ecclesiastical  office,  &c.  So,  help  me  God,  through  Jesus  Christ." 
*  Acts,  8:  18;   from  which  transaction  of  Simon  Magu3,;the  term  Simony  is  derived. 


192  PRELACY     EXAMINED. 

Here  then  is  the  law ;  the  law  of  the  Church  in  all  ages  ;  and 
plainly  the  law  of  Heaven  too  ;  for  certainly,  according  to  the  first 
canon  above  cited,  every  simonist  should  be  dealt  with  as  Simon 
Magus  was,  and  doubtless  is  regarded  by  the  Head  of  the  Church  as 
he  was  by  Peter.     This  is  the  law;  now  what  are  the  y«c<s' ? 

The  simony  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  during  the  middle  ages  is 
well  knovni  to  every  reader  of  history.  Enough  evidence  of  this 
might  be  given  to  sicken  the  most  zealous  Papist.  It  is  so  abundant, 
we  scarcely  know  where  to  begin  ;  but  we  will  give  a  case  or  two. 
Foxe,  the  English  martyrologist  and  historian,  says  :  "Benedict  IX 
was  fain  to  sell  his  seat  to  Ids  successor,  Gregory  VI  for  d£l500, 
at  which  time  were  three  Popes  together  in  Rome,  reigning  and 
raging  one  against  another  ;  Benedict  IX,  Sylvester  III,  and  Gregory 
VI  ;  for  which  cause,  the  Emperor,  coming  to  Rome,  displaced  the 
three  monsters,  placing  Clement  II  in  the  Papal  chair."  Dr.  Whitby, 
of  the  Church  of  England,  gives  many  authorities  on  this  point. 
Among  others,  he  says :  "Glaber,  the  monk,  informs  us,  that  the 
Emperor  Henry  II  having  convened  (11th  century)  all  his  Archbishops 
and  Bishops  in  France  and  Germany,  told  them,  that  all  ecclesiastical 
degrees,  even  from  the  Popedom,  to  the  doorkeepers,  were  oppressed, 
with  damnable  simony,  and  that  this  spiritual  robbery  obtained  in  all 
places  ;  and  that  the  Bishops  not  being  able  to  deny  this  charge,  fled 
to  the  Emperor's  mercy,  who  said  to  them.  Go  your  way,  and  what 
you  have  unlawfully  obtained  endeavor  to  dispose  of  well,"  Dr. 
Whitby  continues  :  "St.  Bernard  saith,  that  the  offices  of  ecclesias- 
tical dignity  are  turned  (12th  century)  into  filthy  lucre,  and  a  work 
of  darkness  ;  'that  now  all  ecclesistical  degrees  are  given  as  an  occa- 
sion of  ^/^Ay  lucre;''  and  Bernard  puts  this  question  to  the  Pope, 
'Who  is  there  of  that  whole  great  city,  (Rome,)  who  received  thee 
as  a  Pope,  without  the  intervention  of  some  price,  or  hopes  of  some 
price  1  these  are  rather  Pastors  of  Devils,  than  of  sheep.'  Mat- 
thew Paris,"  continues  Dr.  Whitby,  speaking  of  the  miserable  state 
of  the  Church  of  England,  (13th  century,)  saith,  ^'then  simony  was 
committed  without  shame  .'"  We  might  give  evidence  to  a  tedious 
length,  showing  the  simony  practised  not  only  by  the  Bishops  of 
Rome,  through  whom  the  English  Bishops,  (and  consequently  the 
American,)  derive  the  pretended  "succession,"  but  practised  through- 
out the  world  in  the  middle  ages.  The  Prelates  of  England,  espe- 
cially, TRADED  directly  with  those  of  Rome,  in  all  sorts  of  simordacal 
wickedness.  The  proverb  here  applies,  that  "The  receiver  is  as 
bad  as  the  thief."     The  court  of  Rome  sold   every  thing ;  English 


THE  APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION.  193 

Bishops  were  the  buyers.     To  give  a  case  or  two,  among  thousands. 

Bishop  Godwin,  in  his  Catalogue  of  the  English  Bishops,  says  : 
'"John  Gemsey,  or  John  of  Oxford,  (for  so  also  I  find  him  called,)  was 
consecrate  Bishop  of  Winchester,  an.  1265,  at  Rome,  where  it  is 
sayd  hee  paid  unto  the  Pope,  6000  marl<.esfor  Ms  consecration,  and  so 
much  more  unto  Jordanus,  the  Pope's  chancellor.''  Godwin  says  of 
William  de  Greenfield,  Archbishop  of  York  :  "^fter  his  election,  hee 
was  faine  to  awaite  the  Pope's  pleasure  two  yeares  before  hee  could 
obtaine  consecration,  which  at  last  he  received.  But  it  cost  him  9500 
markes,  beside  the  charge  that  he  was  at  while  hee  lay  in  the  Pope's 
Court  a*  suter."  Of  John  Morton,  the  64th  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
1487,  Godwin  says  :  "Thirteene  yeares  he  enjoyed  quietly  the  Arch- 
bishopricke  and  died  at  last  at  his  manner  of  Knoll,  the  yeare  1500, 
in  the  moneth  of  October.  At  his  first  coming,  he  laid  a  great  impo- 
sition upon  the  cleargy  of  his  Province,  forcing  them  hy  the  Pope's 
authority  to  contribute  so  largely  toward  the  charges  of  his  translation, 
as  of  his  owne  Dioces  onely,  which  is  one  of  the  least  in  England,  he 
received  354  pound;"  and  the  whole  amount  of  the  cost  of  his  trans- 
lation to  the  See  of  Cantei-bury  is  stated  to  have  been  ''fifteen 
thousand  pounds  !" 

These  taken  will  amply  suffice  as  samples  of  the  simoniacal  traffic 
with  Rome  of  the  English  Prelates.  "Sometimes,"  says  Godwin, 
"those  who  had  purchased,  were,  by  a  fraudulent  clause,  in  a  subse- 
quent bull,  thrown  out  of  their  purchase.  It  was  then  sold  to  a 
second  huckster,  and  the  Pope  received  double."  Now  the  simple 
question  is  this  :  If  the  Bishops  of  England  and  the  Bishops  of  Rome 
their  ordainers,  were  for  hundreds  of  years,  reaching  down  to  a 
period  as  late  as  the  latter  part  of  the  15th  century,  guilty  of  the 
most  open  and  shameless  simony  practised  with  each  other ;  and 
if  the  Church  in  all  ages,  by  the  decrees  of  her  Councils,  has  reit- 
erated the  manifest  law  of  Heaven,  that,  to  use  the  language  of  the 
Canon  Law  cited  by  Gratian,  "  There  is  no  p>ower  in  ordination  where 
buying  and  selling  prevail,"  or  the  language  of  the  Council  of  Pla- 
centina,  that  "Whatever  holy  orders  are  obtained  hy  money,  either 
given  or  promised  to  be  given,  we  declare  that  they  were  null  from  the 
beginning,  and  never  had  any  validity  ;"  if,  we  say,  this  be  the  law, 
and  these  the  facts,  is  it  not  as  plain  as  the  noonday  sun,  that  this 
Prelatico- Apostolical  succession  has  been  long  since  sundered  into 
thrice  ten  thousand  fragments  1  Modern  Prelates  the  "successors  of 
the  ArosTLES  !"  Rather,  let  them  here  behold,  in  those  their  spirit- 
ual progenitors,  the  true  successors  of  Simon  Magus  ! 


194  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

Tenth  Case — General  Corruption. — We  urge  as  the  last  instance 
of  a  shattered  "succession,"  we  shall  stop  to  notice,  the  total,  uni- 
vei'sal,  and  abominable  wickedness  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  extend- 
ing through  hundreds  of  years.  Our  position  is  this  :  Such  was  their 
character,  private,  intblic,  and  official,  for  all  hinds  of  criminality,  that 
we  have  every  reason  to  believe  they  were  disowned  of  God,  as  they  ought 
to  he  of  men.  , 

We  are  aware  that  Prelatists  deny  the  soundness  of  this  position  : 
a  few  words  therefore  may  be  necessary  in  its  vindication.  We 
maintain  it  on  two  grounds,  viz  :  (1)  Personal  immorality  ;  (2)  Official 
immorality. 

1.  Personal  immorality. — Our  opj^onents  maintain  that  the  personal 
corruption  of  a  man  cannot  affect  his  official  character  or  his  official 
acts  ;  and  they  frequently  ask,  as  a  supposed  parallel  case,  if  the 
personal  immorality  of  an  ambassador  at  a  foreign  court,  can  affect 
the  legality  of  his  acts  in  behajf  of  the  human  government  he 
represents.  In  reply,  we  have  simply  to  say,  that  this  and  similar 
instances  are  not  at  all  analogous,  but  totally  irrelevant  to  illustrate 
the  case  in  hand.  While  a  good  moral  character  is  never  deemed 
by  a  human  government  indispensable  to  qualify  a  man  to  act  as  its 
agent ;  yet  in  the  judgment  of  God  as  indicated  in  his  Word,  not 
only  is  a  good  moral  character  indispensable  to  qualify  a  man  to  be 
His  ambassador,  but  more  than  this  :  a  reneioed  heart  also.  If  this 
be  denied,  we  ask  :  Does  G  od  acknowledge  as  His  ambassador,  to 
act  in  His  name  in  His  spiritual  kingdom,  a  man  who  is  not  even  a 
Christian  1  Does  he  require  in  a  private  Christian  a  less  moral  quali- 
fication than  He  does  in  a  minister  ?  "If  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit 
of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his,"  said  an  inspired  Apostle.  If  a  man 
cannot  be  acknowledged  by  God  as  a  Christian  without  having  the  Spirit 
of  Christ,  can  he  be  acknowledged  by  God  as  a  7ninister  of  Christ 
without  it  1  The  question  is  too  plain  to  admit  of  debate.  If  a 
man  .is  not  even  a  Christian,  he  cannot  be,  in  the  judgment  of 
Heaven,  a  Christian  minister.  If  the  Romish  Bishops,  during  the 
period  to  which  we  allude,  were  not  Christians,  they  were  not  God's 
ambassadors,  and  consequently  their  acts  as  such  were  a  nullity. 
But,  it  may  be  asked,  how  is  it  proved  that  these  Romish  Bishops 
were  not  Christians  ?  "By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them."  We 
shall  presently  give  evidence  of  their  unchristian  character  sufficient 
to  satisfy  the  most  incredulous. 

2.  Official  immorality. — Not  only  were   the   Romish  Bishops  per- 


THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  195 

sonally  guilty  of  the  most  shameless  immorality,  but  their  official 
character  and  their  official  acts,  as  professed  ambassadors  for  Christ, 
were  such  an  abomination,  that  they  were  evidently  deemed  mill  ah 
initio,  by  the  court  of  Heaven,  Of  this  we  shall  give  proof  hereafter. 
Admitting  it  for  the  present,  and  it  follows  that  we  are  not  obliged 
to  rest  the  nullity  of  their  official  acts  upon  the  immorality  of  their 
private  or  personal  conduct  merely  ;  (an  immorality  so  great  and  long 
continued,  beginning  and  only  ending  with  their  lives,  as  to  make  it 
evident  that  they  never  were  Christians  ;  which  of  itself  is  sufficient 
to  sustain  our  position  ;) — but  we  go  further,  and  maintain  that  such 
was  the  character  of  the  whole  routine  of  their  official  conduct,  in 
those  very  transactions  for  the  performance  of  which  the  Court  of 
Heaven  has  appointed  ambassadors,  that  it  would  be  little  short  of 
blasphemy  to  aver,  that  God  did  or  could  give  to  those  acts  his  sanc- 
tion. Now  this  position  reaches  entirely  beyond  all  the  illustrations 
which  Prelatists  bring  forth  ;  and  if  it  can  be  sustained  by  facts,  our 
main  point  will  be  triumphantly  vindicated. 

In  regard  to  the  main  point  here  at  issue,  we  have  already  given  evi- 
dence enough  to  substantiate  it,  in  showing  the  simony  of  the  Rom- 
ish Bishops.  The  facts  bearing  upon  this  single  topic  are  sufficient 
to  make  a  clean  sweep  of  the  whole  Romish  hierarchy,  (and  most  of 
the  English  too,)  for  many  hundred  years.  But  we  now  go  further, 
and  shall  show  that  such  crimes  as  sedition,  treason,  murder,  S)X.,  fre- 
quently characterized  their  official  acts.  Now  if  in  the  judgment 
of  God,  and  according  to  the  laws  of  the  Church,  simony,  practised 
in  the  procuration  of  orders,  rendered  both  acts  and  orders  "null  from 
the  beginning,"  why  do  not  treason,  sedition,  and  murder  have  the 
same  effect,  when  practised  with  the  same  intent  1 

The  unblushing  wickedness  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome  is  sufficient  to 
fill  volumes.  We  can  only  give  a  few  passages.  Mosheim,  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  Germany,  a  standard  historian,  says  :  "The  history 
of  the  Roman  Pontiffs  that  lived  in  this  century,  (the  10th,)  is  a  his- 
tory of  so  7nany  monsters  and  not  of  men,  and  exhibits  a  horrible 
series  of  the  most  flagitious,  tremendous,  and  complicated  crimes, 
as  all  writers,  even  those  of  the  Romish  communion,  unanimously 
confess."  Foxe,  the  English  historian,  speaking  of  John  XH,  says  : 
"This  Pope  is  noted  to  be  very  wicked  and  infamous  with  abominable 
vices,  an  adulterer,  gamester,  extortioner,  perjurer,  a  fighter,  a  murderer, 
cruel  and  tyrannous.  Of  his  Cardinals,  some  he  put  out  their  eyes, 
from  some  he  cut  of  their  tongues,  some   their  fingers,  some  their 


196  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

noses,"  &c.  Says  Howell,  of  the  Church  of  England:  "Pope  Vigilius, 
A.  D.  540,  wades  to  the  pontifical  throne  through  his  predecessors^ 
bloody  "Martin  II,  A.  D.  883,  raises  a  sedition  against  Pope  John, 
throws  him  into  chains,  and  forces  him  to  flee  for  his  life."  Platina, 
the  Popish  biographer  says  that  Clement  II,  A.  D.  1048,  "ioas  pois- 
oned with  poison  prepared,  as  it  was  supposed,  by  his  successor, 
Pope  Damasus  II.  This  Damasus  invaded  the  chair  hy  force.  And 
this  had  become  so  established  a  custom,  that  any  ambitious  individual 
had  the  liberty  of  ifivading  Peter's  seat."  Platina  also  represents 
Theodorus  II  as  "seditious  ;"  Christopher,  whom  he  calls  "a  wolf," 
throws  his  predecessor  into  prison,  "with  great  tumult,  sedition,  and 
loss  of  many  lives."  "In  so  vicious  a  state,"  says  Platina,  "was  the 
pontifical  authority  then,  that  a  private  person  could,  by  violence  and 
faction,  seize  it  in  any  moment."  Bishop  Jewel,  of  the  Church  of 
England,  says  :  "Pope  Sylvester  II  was  made  Pope  by  necromancy, 
and  in  recompense  thereof,  promised  both  body  and  soul  unto  the 
Devil."  Dr.  Prideaux,  a  learned  Church  of  England  divine,  num- 
bers among  the  Popes,  "thirty-eight  usurping  Nimrods  ;  forty  luxur- 
ious Sodomites ;  forty-one  devouring  Abaddons ;  twenty  incurable 
Babylonians."  Of  Gregory  VII,  Prideaux  says  :  "He  had  poisoned 
some  six  or  seven  Popes,  by  Brazutus,  before  he  could  get  the  Pope- 
dom himself."  Cardinal  Baronius  of  the  Romish  Church  says  : 
"Boniface  VII  was  rather  a  thief,  a  murderer,  and  a  traitor  to  his 
country,  than  a  Pope."  Baronius  further  says,  speaking  of  the  elec- 
tion of  Popes  in  the  ninth  century  :  "What  was  then  the  appearance 
of  the  holy  Roman  Church  !  how  very  foul,  when  the  most  powerful 
as  well  as  the  most  infamous  harlots  ruled  at  Rome  !  by  whose  will 
Sees  were  changed,  Bishops  were  given,  and  what  is  shocking  to  hear 
and  dreadful  to  reldXe,  p)seudo-Popes,  their  paramours,  were  thrust  into 
Peter's  chair,  who  were  written  in  the  catalogue  of  Roman  Pontiffs 
ONLY  TO  MARK  TIME  !  For  wlio  could  assert,  that  those  intruded 
by  strumpets  of  this  kind,  without  law,  were  legitimate  Roman  Pon- 
tiffs %  Nowhere  is  any  mention  made  of  the  clergy  electing,  or  after- 
wards  consenting.  All  canons  were  condemned  to  silence  ;  decrees 
of  Pontiffs  strangled  ;  ancient  traditions  proscribed  ;  and  old  customs 
in  the  election  of  the  chief  Pontiff,  sacred  rites,  and  pristine  usages, 
were  altogether  extinguished.  Thus  lust  asserted  her  right  to  every 
thing,  supported  by  secular  power,  frantic,  inflamed  wdth  the  passion 
of  ruling."     Thus  speaks  a  great  champion  of  Romanism  ! 

To  one  but  poorly  read  in  the  depravity  of  those  times,  it  might 


THE  APOSTOLiCAL    SUCOKSSION.  197 

seem  strange,  that  if  such  was  then  the  general  character  of  the 
Bishops  of  Rome,  they  were  not  deposed  and  excommunicated. 
But  this  was  next  to  impossible,  if  not  absolutely  so.  They  had  all 
power  in  their  hands.  Kings  trembled,  and  lay  prostrate  at  their 
feet.  Besides,  as  early  as  the  time  of  Leo  IV,  and  "by  this  Pope," 
according  to  Foxe,  "it  was  first  enacted  in  a  Council,  that  no  Bishop 
should  he  condemned,  under  threescore  and  twelve  witnesses  f"  How 
was  it  possible,  in  those  times,  and  under  such  a  canon,  to  convict  a 
Bishop,  though  he  might  have  been  blackened  by  all  the  crimes  in 
the  catalogue  of  human  guilt !  Godwin  gives  some  dark  pictures, 
showing  that  Roman  Bishops  Were  not  the  only  "monsters  in  guilt." 
We  have  already  seen  that  he  charges  almost  the  whole  English  hier- 
archy with  the  guilt  of  simony  practised  with  Rome.  He  also  gives 
instances  of  their  participation  in  the  other  enormous  crimes,  learned 
in  the  school  of  their  "holy  mother."  To  cite  but  one.  Speaking  of 
"Hadrian  de  Castello,  Bishop  of  Bathe  and  Wels,"  Godwin  says  : 
"A  Cardinall  of  Rome  called  Alfonso  Petruccio  conspired  with  cer- 
taine  other  Cardinals,  the  death  of  Pope  Leo  X.  Amongst  them, 
tJiis  our  Hadrian  was  content  to  make  one  ;  moved  thereunto,  as  P» 
Jouius  affirmeth,  not  by  any  grudge  or  private  displeasure,  but  only 
by  an  ambitious  conceit,  that  surely  hee  should  he  Pope,  if  Leo  were 
once  dead.  *  *  *  *  This  conspiracy  being  come  to  the  Pope's 
knowledge,  hee  caused  Cardinall  Petruccius  to  bee  apprehended,  and 
shortly  after  executed."  "Hee  was  neverthelesse  content  freely  to 
give  pardon  unto  so  many  as  should  then  immediately  confesse  the 
fault.  Hereupon  Hadrian  and  some  other  falling  downe  upon  their 
knees  before  him,  acknowledged  what  they  had  done,  and  humbly 
besought  him  of  mercy.  Hee  promised  to  bee  as  good  as  his  word, 
and  indeede  so  was.  Howbeit  Hadrian,  eyther  fearing  the  worst,  or 
ashamed  to  shew  his  face,  shortly  after  stale  secretly  aWay,  and  was 
never  eyther  seene  or  heard  of  afterward." 

We  might  multiply  facts  going  to  show  the  extreme  wickedness 
of  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  almost  ad  infinitum,  embracing  every 
deed  in  the  dark  catalogue  of  crime,  with  which  any  record  of  human 
depravity  in  any  age  has  been  .stained.  But  we  turn  fx^om  these 
shocking  details  in  disgust.  Q,uite  evidence  enough  has  been  fur- 
nished to  warrant  the  celebrated  remark  of  Chillingworth,  of  the 
Church  of  England  :  "He  that  shall  maturely  consider  all  the  pos- 
sible ways  of  lapsing  and  nullifying  a  Priesthood  in  the  Church  of 
Rome,  will   be  very  inclinable  to   think  that  it  is  a  hundred  to  one 

A'^ 


198  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

that  among  a  hundred  seeming  Priests,  there  is  not  one  true  one  j 
nay,  that  it  is  not  a  thing  very  improbable,  that  amongst  those  many 
millions  which  make  up  the  Romish  hierarchy,  there  are  not  tioenty 
trite"  And  yet,  these  are  the  men,  who,  for  hundreds  of  years  gave 
orders  to  the  Prelates  of  England  !  This  is  the  pure  channel  through 
which  have  flowed  the  holy  waters  of  the  "Apostolical  succession" 
for  ages  !  This  is  the  line  by  which  Dr.  Hook  &  Co.  trace  up  their 
*'unhroken  spiritual  descent  to  St.  Peter  or  St.  Paul !"  Men  who 
esteem  it  any  especial  privilege  to  be  thus  connected  with  the  Apos- 
tles, do  but  "glory  in  their  shame."  From  all  such  relationship, 
we  shall  ever  fervently  pray,  "Good  Lord,  deliver  us  !"* 

*  Bishop  Otey,  in  a  great  display  of  words,  attempts  lo  meet  and  answer  the  charge 
u'hich  we  bring  against  the  succession,  that  it  has  been  bvoken.  Hear  him  :  "  But  the 
Episcopal  succession  they  say,  has  been  broken.  When  asked  in  what  instance,  we  are 
referred  to  the  alleged  elevation  of  a  woman  named  Joan,  to  the  Papacy  in  the  nmth 
century  "  He  then  endeavors  to  disprove  this  story  ;  and  asserts,  that  admitting  it  to 
be  true,  it  could  not  affect  the  succession,  "  as  the  Popes  did  not  consecrate  Bishops;"  and 
he  then  remarks :  "  The  truth  is,  that  those  who  have  thrown  away  Episcopacy,  feel 
bound  to  sliow  reason  for  abandoning  an  institution  so  ancient  and  attended  by  so  many 
marks  of  its  scriptural  authority;  and  being  hard  pressed  for  arguments,  they  have 
caught  at  this  story  about  Pope  Joan,  whxh  combines  the  plausible  with  the  ridiculous, 
to  demolish  the  whole  theory.,  as  they  think,  of  the  Apostolical  succesion.  They  know 
well  that  ridicule  often  prevails,  when  solid  arguments  are  lacking,  and  boldly  asserting 
that  a  woman  was  once  Pope,  ask  what  is  snch  a  succession  worth?— as  though  they  had 
destroyed  the  Apostolical  succession  by  showing  a  link  was  lacking  in  the  Roman  chain!" 
— Discourses, pp.  66,  67,  68.  Now  he  it  remembered,  that  this  is  the  only  case  of  an  al- 
leged break  in  the  succession  which  Bishop  Otey  condescends  lo  notice!  And  further, 
that  he  intends  to  make  the  direct  impression  upon  his  hearers  and  readers  that  this  is 
the  only  and  the  strong  casehy  which  we  endeavor  to  sustain  our  charge  !  Is  this  candid? 
Is  it  honest?  Does  he  not  know  better?  Have  not  anti-Prelatists,  for  centuries  back, 
brought  forth  other  cases,  upon  which  they  have  based  the  strength  of  their  charge?  Why 
has  he  passed  all  these  by  unnoticed?  Doubtless  for  the  reason  tljat  it  is  dangerous  for 
some  persons  to  meddle  with  edged  tools !  Indeed  we  have  never  met  with  a  single  wri- 
ter who  deemed  this  case  of  any  especial  consequence;  much  less,  one  who  rested  the  en- 
lire  charge  of  a  broken  succession  upon  it.  For  the  reason  of  its  unimportance,  and  be- 
cause we  wished  to  cite  such  cases  only  as  could  not  he  questioned,  we  have  not  placed  it 
in  the  list  of  cases.  But  look  at  it  a  moment.  Dr.  Pndeaux,  a  learned  divine  of  the 
Church  of  England,  says  that  there  aref/ly  authoritiesbelonging  to  the  Church  of  Rome, 
who  declare  that  there  actually  was  a  female  in  disguise  elected  and  confirmed  as  Pope 
JohnVIll.  Platina  says  that  "her  Pontificate  lasted  one  year,  one  month  and  four 
days;  tliat  she  became  with  child  by  some  of  those  about  her;  that  she  miscarried  and 
died  on  her  way  to  the  Lateran  Church  or  Temple;"  and  as  regards  the  degree  of  credit  due 
to  these  statements,  that,  in  his  day,  "  almost  every  body  affirmed  them  to  he  true.''''  Fla- 
cius  Illyricus shows  from  the  testimony  of  authors  living  near  the  times,  and  for  several 
hundred  years  afterward,  that  during  that  time  it  was  never  doubted;  and  that  these  au- 
thors were  Italians,  and  relatives  of  the  Popes.  Foxe,  the  English  historian  says  "that 
for  five  hundred  years  after  the  time  of  Pope  Joan,  it  was  acknowledged  as  an  historical 
iaet  of  as  great  notoriety  as  any  other  connected  with  the  Papal  chair  "    We  leave  tbe 


THE  APOSTOLICAL    SUCCESSION. 


199 


We  have  now  fully  established,  as  we  conceive,  our  two  main 
propositions — 

1.  That  there  is  no  certainty  of  the,  existence  of  the  lyretended,  "Apos- 
tolical succession  ;"  as,  according  to  Dr.  Prideaux  of  the  Church  of 
England,  it  "faltereth  and  faileth  in  the  first  foundation." 

2.  That  there  is,  however,  a  positive  certainty  that  this  so-called 
"unbroken  chain  of  valid  ordinations"  through  an  "uninteiTupted 
succession"  of  Prelates,  has  been    sundered    time  and   again —  our 

opponents  being  the  sworn  witnesses. 

reader  to  form  his  own  opinion  of  this  case  with  these  statements  before  him.  Well  may 
an  binglish  divine  remark  :  "  If  Aa'/  of  the  history  of  Popery  has  any  truth  in  it,  there 
was  really  a  female  strumpet,  as  a  link  in  this  chain,  as  a  progenetrix  in  this  spiritual 
descent.'''' 

As  Bishop  Otey  hascited  but  one  historian,  Pr.  Mosheim,  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
the  total  non^enlity  of  '■  Pope  Joan,"  and  as  this  historian  is  one  in  whose  competency 
we  have  full  confidence,  we  are  disposed  to  let  the  reader  seejust  v/hat  this  historian  ao* 
tually  has  sa'id  upon  the  point.  We  put  his  own  account,  and  Bishop  Otey's  representa- 
tion of  it,  side  by  side: 

Otey's  Mosheim.  Mosheim  himself. 

"But  let  us  consider  the  story  itself.  Mo-I  "Between  Leo  IV.,  who  died  A.  D.  8.55. 
sheim,  the  ecclesiastical  historian,  whose  and  Benedict  III.,  a  woman,  who  concealed 
authority  in  this  case  at  least  will  not  be  her  sex,  and  assumed  the  name  of  John,  it  is 
questioned,  says  that  '  between  the  Ponii-'said,  opened  her  way  to  the  Pontifical 
ficate  of  Leo  IV  who  died  in  the  year  855,  throne,  by  her  learning  and  genius  and  go* 


and  that  of  Benedict  III  ,  a  certain  woman, 
who  had  the  art  to  disguise  her  sex  for  a 
considerable  time,  is  said,  by  learning,  gsn- 


verned  the  Church  lor  a  time.  She  is  com- 
monly called  the  Papess  Joanna.  During 
[he  five  subsequent  centuries,  the  vntnesses  to 


ius,  and  dexterity,  to  have  made  good  her Jhis  extraordinary  event,  are  wiihout  number; 
way  to  the  Papal  chair,  and  tohave  governJMOR  did  any  one,  prior  to  the  Reformation. 
ed  the  Church  with  the  title  and  dignity  ofjo^  LuUur,  regardthe  thing  as  either  incredi^ 
pontiff  about  two  years  '  After  stating  thatk'Ze,  or  d'lsgraceful  to  the  Church.  But  in  the 
this  story  gave  ri?e  to  long  and  embitterediseventeenth  century,  learned  men,  not  only 


discussion,  some  asserting  and  others  deny 
ing  its  truth,  he  expresses  his  opinion  that 
some  unusual  event  had  occurred  at  Rome, 
and  concludes  by  ob.serving  that  '  what  it 
was  that  gave  rise  to  this  story  is  yet  to  be 


among  the  Roman  Catholics,  but  others  also, 
e.\erted  all  the  powers  of  their  ingenuity, 
both  to  invalidate  the  testimony  on  which 
ihe  truth  of  the  story  rests,  and  to  confute  it 
by  an  accurate  computation  of  dates.    But 


discove»ed,  and  is  likely  to  remain  so.'    Acjthere  still  are  very  learned  men,  who,  while 
cording  to  history  the   whole  rests  upon  a  they  concede  that  much  falsehood  is  mixed 


say  so— it  is  at  best  but  a  flimsy  argument 
that  can  be  constructed  upon  so  insecure  a 
foundation." — Discourses,  pp.  66,  67. 


with  tlie  truth,  maintain  that  the  contro' 
versy  is  not  wholly  settled.  Something  must 
necessarily  have  taken  place  at  Rome  to 
^ive  rise  to  this  most  uniform  report  of  so 
ma7iy  ages ;  hut  what  it  was  that  occurred, 
does  not  yet  appear."— Ecc.  Hist.  vol.  2, pp. 
73,  74.  Murdock''s  Translation. 
Wc  barely  recommend,  that  when  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee  "  next  attempts  to  read 

Mosheim,  he  be  careful  to  wipe  the  dust  from  his  spectacles— else  it  will  be  likely  to  get 

into  the  eyes  of  his  E/n'jfo/>ai!  rcudere .' 


200  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

We  therefore  conclude,  that  this  Prelatico-Apostolical  succession 
is  but  a  creature  of  the  imagination  ;  and  that  the  making  it  as  Pre» 
iatists  now  do,  the  basis  of  disfranchising  many  truly  Christian 
Churches,  ought  to  be  universally  abhorred — "on  earth  as  it  is  in 
heaven," 

III.  Further  considerations  which  may  affect  the  soundness  of  the 
"succession." 

There  are  many  other  points  which  deserve  examination,  but  which 
•we  must  necessarily  omit  for  want  of  space.  We  shall,  however, 
barely  notice  five.  Some  of  them  may  affect  the  English  succession  : 
all  of  them,  the  American. 

1.  At  the  time  of  the  Reformationj  the  whole  English  Church — 
clergy,  people,  and  all — who  favored  that  measure,  were  cut  off", 
cast  out,  excommunicated,  and  anathematised,  by  the  Papal  authority. 
Up  to  that  time  the  English  Church  had  been  one  with  Romish,  and 
had  acknowledged*  the  Pope  as  the  supreme  head.  We  see  not  why, 
upon  the  strict  principles  of  successionists,  the  bull  of  excommunica- 
tion, emanating  from  the  acknowledged  head  of  ecclesiastical  author- 
ity, did  not  destroy  English  orders,  root  and  branch.  This  is  what 
Romanists  avow,  and  consequently  they  will  not  acknowledge  the 
orders  of  the  English  Church.  We  think  they  are  right,  according 
to  the  vital  principles  of  the  succession  scheme  ;  and  did  we  base  the 
validity  of  Presbyterian  orders  upon  any  such  foundation,  we  should 
tremble  for  their  soundness,  after  such  an  excommunication. 

2.  At  the  time  of  the  Reformation  in  the  Church  of  England,  the 
supremacy  of  the  King  was  substituted  for  that  of  the  Pope.  Thig 
was  a  fundamental  principle  in  the  Reformation  of  that  Church.  In 
one  of  the  last  statutes  of  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII,  it  is  declared 
that  "Archbishops,  Bishops,  Archdeacons,  and  the  other  ecclesias- 
tical persons,  have  no  manner  of  jurisdiction  ecclesiastical,  but  by, 
under,  and  from  his  royal  majesty ;  and  that  his  majesty  is  the  only 
supreme  head  of  the  Church  of  England  and  Ireland  ;  to  wh&m,  by 
holy  Scripture,  all  authority  and  power  are  wholly  given,  to  hear  and 
determine  all  manner  of  causes  ecclesiastical,  and  to  correct  all  man- 
ner of  heresies,  eiTors,  vices,  and  sins  whatever,  and  to  all  such  per- 
sons as  his  majesty  shall  appoint  thereunto."*  Acting  in  obedience 
to  this  statute.  Archbishop  Cranmer,  on  the  death  of  Henry,  in  conse- 
quence of  his  Episcopal  authority  having  ended  with  the  king's  life, 
would  not  act  as  Archbishop,  till  he  had  a.  new  cnminission  from 
"♦STTHen.^lL,  chap.  17, 


THE  APOSTOLICAL    SUtCESSIO?f.  201 

the  successor  of  Henry,  Edward  VI.  This  shows  the  source  of  Epis- 
copal power,  as  then  understood.  Bishop  Burnet  says  :  "In  the  first 
year  of  the  reign  of  Edward  VI,  all  that  held  offices  were  required 
to  come  and  renew  their  commissions.  Among  the  rest,  the  Bishops 
came  and  took  out  such  commissions  as  were  granted  in  the  former 
reign,  namely,  to  hold  their  Bishoprics  during  pleasure,  and  were 
empotvered  in  the  King^s  name,  as  his  delegates,  to  perform  all  the 
parts  of  the  Episcopal  functions ;'''' — "and  therefore,  the  King  did 
empower  them,  in  his  stead  to  ordain,  give  institution,  and  do  all 
the  other  parts  of  the  Episcopal  function."  "By  this,"  adds  Bishop 
Burnet,   "they  were  made  the  King's  ministers  indeed."* 

Here  we  have  a  predates  specimen,  Henry  VIII,  through  whose 
pollutions  must  be  traced  the  Prelatical  succession  !  An  act  of  Par- 
liament places  full  authority  in  the  crown,  and  all  the  hierarchy  sub- 
mit to  it  and  act  under  it  !     Is  there  nothing  "defective"  here  1 

3.  When  the  succession  (such  as  English  Prelacy  could  give,) 
was  sought  for  to  establish  Prelates  in  the  American  Episcopal 
Church,  the  line  was  not  permitted  to  cross  the  Atlantic  without  a 
special  act  of  Parliament  !t  No  Prelate  of  England  dared  to  lay 
hands  on  the  American  divines,  till  King  George  III  and  his  Parlia- 
ment gave  the  authority.  The  act  empowers  certain  English  Pre- 
lates to  consecrate  them,  with  three  provisos, — one  of  which  is  "that 
no  person  or  persons  consecrated  to  the  office  of  a  Bishop,  in  the 
manner  aforesaid,  nor  any  person  or  persons  deriving  their  consecra- 
tion from  or  under  any  Bishop  so  consecrated,  nor  any  person  or 
persons  admitted  to  the  order  of  Deacon  or  Priest  by  any  Bishop  or 
Bishops  so  consecrated,  or  by  the  successor  or  successors  of  any 
Bishop  or  Bishops  so  consecrated,  shall  be  thereby  enabled  to  exer- 
cise his  or  their  respective  office  or  offices  within  his  majesty's  domi- 
nions." How  beautifully  this  commission  of  King  George  and  his 
Parliament  to  American  Prelates  coincides  with  the  commission  of 
Christ  to  7ds  ambassadors  !  Christ  says:  "G  o  ye  into  all  the  world 
and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature''  But  King  George  says  ; 
"Go  ye  wherever  ye  please,  except  into  my  dominions  on  which  the 
sun  never  sets,  and  preach  the  Gospel  where  ye  can  !"  What 
beauties  this  succession  scheme  presents  !  American  Prelates  were 
"Bishops   at  home,"    but —  laymen   in    "his    majesty's    dominions  !" 

•  History  of  the  Reformation,  abridged, 
t  For  a  copy  of  this  Act,  see  Appendix  F. 


202  PREI?ACY    EXAMINED. 

Bishops  White,   Provoost,   and  Madison,   were  consecrated  by   the 
authority  granted  in  this  act. 

4.  Bishop  Seabury  of  Connecticut,  the  first  American  Prelate,  was 
consecrated  by  the  non-juring  Bishops  of  Scotland,  respecting  whose 
authority  to  convey  orders  much  discussion  has  heretofore  occuiTed 
among  Prelatists  themselves ;  some  maintaining  that  the  non-jurors 
could  not  regularly  ordain.  Bishop  White  did  not  deem  the  authority 
of  the  Scottish  Prelates  entirely  free  from  objection,  and  conse- 
quently sought  ordination  at  the  hands  of  the  English  in  preference. 
This  has  been  repeatedly  shown  from  Bishop  White's  own  writings, 
and  cannot  be  denied.  Another  circumstance  worthy  of  note  affect- 
ing the  American  succession,  is  the  notorious  fact,  that  Dr.  Provoost, 
the  first  Prelate  of  New-York,  teas  never  baptised,  and  consequently 
was  unregenerate,  and  was  not  even  a  member  of  'Uhe  Church," 
according  to  the  strict  principles  of  the  successionists !  All  the  baptism 
he  ever  had  was  by  that  old  "dissenter,"  Rev.  Mr.  Dubois,  one  of 
the  ministers  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  !  Alas  !  alas  !  for  the 
American  succession  !  True,  when  hard  pressed  with  such  difficulties, 
Prelatists  insist  on  the  validity  of  ^o^z-baptism  ! — but  this  has  gener- 
ally been  regarded  valid  only  in  cases  of  "necessity,"  when  none 
other  could  be  had.  What  necessity  can  be  pleaded  in  this  case  ? 
Is  there  nothing  "defective"  here  %  What  strong  props  for  a  totter- 
ing succession  ! 

5.  The  last  point  we  notice,  affects  the  soundness  of  the  Ameiican 
succession  as  late  as  the  year  1811.  At  the  consecration  in  that  year 
of  Bishops  Hobart  of  New  York,  and  Griswold  of  Connecticut,  a  part 
of  the  ordination  service  was  omitted.  This  in  the  esteem  of  many 
Prelatists  was  deemed  so  essential  as  to  destroy  the  validity  of  the  act. 
A  newspaper  and  pamphleteering  controversy  was  carried  on  wholly 
within  "the  Church,"  some  maintaining  that  the  ordination  was  com- 
pletely null,  and  that  the  succession  would  forever  be  lost.  It  is  well 
known  that  the  Rev.  Cave  Jones,  then  an  associate  Pastor  of  Trinity 
Church,  New  York,  maintained  the  invalidity  of  Dr.  Hobart's  con- 
secration. An  anonymous  writer,  under  the  signature  of  "Hierony- 
mus,"  shows  what  the  omission  was,  as  follows:  "This  sacred  signet  of 
authority, — 'In  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,' — forms  the  very  essence  of  the  conveyance  of  the  sacred 
commission.  'The  Holy  Trinity,'  says  the  learned  Bingham,  'is  the 
fountain  of  all  spiritual  authority  and  power' — and  'at  first  gave  them 
(the  Priesthood)  authority  ;'    (Bingham's  Works,  vol.  2,  p.  619  ;)   yet 


THE  APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION.  203 

these  sacred  words  were  omitted  in  the  consecration  of  Dr.  Hobart. 
And  of  this  the  least  we  can  say,  is  that  it  is  a  very  essential  defect. 
May  we  not  pronounce  it  something  more  %  Does  it  not  render  the 
whole  AN  UTTER  NULLITY  ]"  Again  the  same  writer  says :  "The 
express  words  of  authority  must  be  used.  They  must  be  used  by 
the  Bishop  himself  And  if  they  be  not  thus  used,  his  ministration, 
so  far  as  is  thus  concerned,  is  empty  and  invalids  This  writer  goes 
learnedly  into  this  controversy,  and  cites  in  his  support,  Bingham, 
Stackhouse,  Archbishop  Potter,  Dean  Comber,  Bishop  Beveridge, 
Barrow,  and  other  Prelatists  ;  and  from  these  competent  witnesses, 
feels  confident  that  the  above-named  omission  rendered  the  whole 
consecration  null  and  void. 

Now  we  confess  we  do  not  pretend  to  judge  of  matters  so  deep  ! — 
we  leave  that  to  Prelatists.  But  if  the  opinion  of  these  eminent 
divines  is  sound,  how  much  certainty  can  many  American  Episco- 
palians have,  that  the  ministers  at  whose  hands  they  receive  the 
word  and  ordinances,  have  on  their  own  principles,  authority  to  ac'- 
minister  them  %  Bishop  Hobart's  consecration,  if  really  invalid, 
forever  remained  so  :  he  was  never  re-consecrated  ;  and  yet,  he  acted 
as  Prelate  in  the  Diocese  of  New  York  for  nearly  twenty  years  !  To 
say  the  least  of  this,  we  think  it  should  forever  stop  the  vaunting  and 
confident  boasting  of  American  Prelatists.  We  dismiss  this  case  by 
asking  a  simple  question — If,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  in  the  city 
of  New  York,  at  the  consecration  of  a  Prelate  to  one  of  the  most 
important  Sees  in  the  United  States,  a  "very  essential  defect"  in  the 
service  occurred,  which  was  pronounced  at  the  time,  by  learned  and 
conscientious  Prelatists,  so  important  as  to  render  the  whole  conse- 
cration "null  and  void  ;"  and  if  this  defect  was  permitted  to  pass 
unremedied,  and  the  Prelate  permitted  to  act  as  such  for  twenty 
years,  or  till  his  death — what  might  not  have  taken  place  to  destroy 
the  succession,  during  the  long  night  of  the  Dark  Ages,  of  which 
period  we  have  such  meagi-e  account  even  of  the  most  public  transac- 
tions \  Let  the  reader  but  ponder  this  simple  question,  and  common 
sense  will  suggest  how  much  certainty  we  can  have  of  an  "uninter- 
rupted succession,"  extending  from  the  present  day  back  to  the 
Apostles. 

We  now  take  leave  of  this  "thing  wonderful" —  this  Prelatico- 
Apostolical  succession.  In  serious  earnest,  we  conscientiously  declare 
it  before  heaven  and  earth,  as  our  most  sober  judgment,  that  this 
dogma  of  the  so-called  "Apostolical  succession,"  taken  in  its  hroad 


204  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

pretensions  and  in  its  slender  realities,  is  the  most  stupendous  ini'- 
position  that  now  infests  the  religious  world.  Well  may  it  be 
called  by  our  clerical  friend  who  penned  the  lines  at  the  head  of  this 
chapter,  a 

"Thing  wonderful— without  a  parallel 

In  all  creation's  universe  beside  ! 
To  be  believed — because  impossible — 
Precious,  unique,  the  lineage,  the  spell, 
That  does  more  than  a  proper  miracle; 

Yet  shows  so  simple — what  it  does  not  hide!" 


•  CHAPTER  VI. 

FURTHER  MISREPRESENTATIONS  OF  BISHOP  OTEY.  CONCES 
SIONS  OF  THE  BRITISH  REFORMERS.  DEGENERACY  OF  MO- 
DERN PRELACY.  PRESENT  TENDENCIES  OF  THE  PRELATICAL 
SYSTEM.     CONCLUSION. 

Truth  crushed  to  earth  will  rise  again, 

Thf  eternal  years  of  God  are  hers; 
Qut  ^rror,  woimded,  writhes  in  pain. 

And  dies  amid  her  worshippers. — Bryant. 

In  this  concluding  chapter  of  a  work  ah'eady  more  expanded  than 
we  could  have  wished,  four  things  we  propose  to  do.  We  design, 
Jirst,  to  correct  some  of  Bishops  Otey's  misrepresentations  respecting 
alleged  concessions  of  Presbyterians,  and  others,  on  important  points 
int  his  controversy ;  secondly,  to  show  the  full  and  unequivocal  admis- 
sion, by  the  British  Reformers  and  other  eminent  Episcopalians,  of 
the  scriptural  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination  and  government ; 
thirdly,  to  glance  at  the  degeneracy  of  modern  Prelacy  ;  ondifourMy, 
to  inquire  into  the  present  tendencies  of  the  prelatical  system. 

I.  Bishop  Otey's  misrepresentations  corrected,  respecting  alleged  con- 
cessions, ifc.,  of  Preshyterians  and  others. 

Bishop  Otey  makes  two  false  impressions  respecting  some  of  the 
more  distinguished  of  the  European  Continental  Reformers  :  1.  That 
they  conceded  the  full  jus  Divinum,  or  scriptural  authority,  of  the 
system  of  Prelacy  ;  2.  That  they  knew  the  Presbyterian  polity  to  be 
contrary  to  the  Scripture  model,  but  yet  adopted  it  from  "necessity." 

In  support  of  the  first  point,  he  quotes  Luther,  Melancthon,  Calvin, 
Beza,  &c.,  &c.  We  have  not  space  to  copy  all  his  quotations,  but  will 
give  a  specimen  from  each  of  the  above.  He  represents  Luther  as 
saying  :  "I  allow  that  each  state  ought  to  have  one  Bishop  of  its  own 
by  Divine  right ;  which  I  show  from  Paul,  saying :  'for  this  cause 
left  I  thee  in  Crete.'  "     He  makes  Melancthon  to  say :  '^I  would  to 

B* 


206  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

God  it  lay  in  me  to  restore  the  government  of  Bishops.  For  I  see 
wliat  manner  of  Church  we  shall  have,  the  ecclesiastical  polity  being 
tlisolved.  I  do  see  that  hereafter  w^ill  grow  up  in  the  Church  a 
greater  tyranny  than  there  ever  w^as  before."  The  following  pur- 
ports to  be  from  Calvin  :  "If  they  will  give  us  such  an  hierarchy,  in 
which  the  Bishops  have  such  a  pre-eminence  as  that  they  not  refuse 
to  be  subject  unto  Christ,  I  will  confess  that  they  are  worthy  of  all 
anathemas,  if  any  such  there  be,  who  will  not  reverence  it,  and  sub- 
mit themselves  to  it  with  the  utmost  obedience."  He  quotes  Beza  : 
"If  there  are  any,  as  you  will  not  easily  persuade  me,  who  would 
reject  the  whole  order  of  Bishops,  God  forbid  that  any  man  in  his 
senses  should  assent  to  their  madness — Let  her  (Church  of  England) 
enjoy  that  singular  blessing  (Episcopacy)  of  God,  which  I  pray  may 
he  perpetual,"* 

In  support  of  the  second  point.  Bishop  Otey  makes  no  quotations, 
(for  the  best  of  all  reasons,)  but  pens  the  following  general  state- 
ments of  his  own  :  "The  plea  urged  for  establishing  a  government 
of  Presbyters  contrary  to  what  was  the  knowm  order  of  the  Church  was 
necessity."  Again  :  "But  what  does  this  plea  of  necessity  unavoidably 
suppose  1  Unquestionably,  a  departure  from  some  established  rule 
and  order,  otherwise  there  could  be  no  reason  or  sense  at  all,  in  such 
plea."t  Again  :  "We  might  bring  forward  the  Lutherans,  Calvin, 
Beza,  Melancthon  and  others  to  prove  not  only  the  lawfulness  of  Epis- 
copacy, but  the  lamentable  necessity  which  some  of  them  pleaded  to 
justify  their  formation  of  another  and  different  system  of  Church 
government."! 

We  meet  the  allegations  touching  both  the  above  points,  with  a 
direct  denial  of  their  truthfulness.  Luther  and  Melancthon  are  well 
known  to  have  believed  in  and  taught  the  original  scriptural  parity 
of  the  ordinary  ministry  :  that  is,  that  in  the  Apostolic  age.  Bishops 
and  Presbyters  were  the  same  in  rank  and  functions ;  and  although 
they  sanctioned,  under  certain  restrictions,  a  limited  and  qualified 
Episcopacy,  (or  rather,  a  superintendency  by  Presbyters,)  they  did 
so  on  the  same  ground  that  many  English  divines  upheld  a  full  grown 
Prelacy,  viz  :  as,  under  certain  circumstances,  a  wise  human  arrange- 
ment, and  not  as  a  positive  and  binding  institution  of  Christ.  As  to 
ordination,  (the  grand  point,)  both  Luther  and  Melancthon  held  to  the 
full  scriptural  authority  of  'Presbyters  alone  to  ordain.     Luther  was 

'  Discourses,  pp.77,  78,  Appendix.  t  Discourses,  p-  17. 

I  DiscourEes.  pp  62,  63. 


FURTHER     MISREPRESENTATIONS.  207 

only  a  Presbyter ;  and  yet  for  nearly  thirty  years  he  claimed  and 
exercised  the  right  of  ordaining,  and  actually  did  ordain  two  ministers 
within  a  few  days  of  his  death.  As  to  Calvin  and  Beza,  they  are  well 
known  to  have  been  opposed  to  Prelacy  both  in  principle  and  practice, 
believing  it  to  have  no  countenance  in  Scripture.  They  are  also 
known  to  have  defended  the  Presbyterian  system  as  entirely  scriptural. 
All  these  assertions  we  shall  prove  beyond  a  doubt.  Now  we  call 
upon  Bishop  Otey  to  show,  from  the  writings  of  these  Reformers,  that 
they  adopted  the  Presbyterian  polity  from  "necessity,"  in  any  such 
sense  as  implies  that  they  did  not  deem  it  to  be  the  system  laid  down 
in  the  Word  of  God.  Until  he  does  this,  he  must  lie  under  the  impu- 
tation of  grossly  misrepresenting  the  honored  dead. 

We  shall  examine  the  above  named  Refonners  in  reverse  or- 
der, beginning  with  Beza.  Bishop  Otey  has  given  us  the  passage 
(above  cited)  from  his  writings,  '■'to  prove  the  lawfulness  of  Episco- 
pacy.'" He  both  garbles  and  misapplies  it.  Does  not  the  "Bishop  of 
Tennessee"  know  that  the  work  of  Beza  from  which  his  mangled 
quotation  is  taken,  was  written  expressly  in  defence  of  Presbyterian- 
ism,  and  in  reply  to  a  prelatical  work  of  Hadrian  Saravia  1  Terhaps 
he  does  not  know  this,  for  he  tells  us  that  "the  foregoing  extracts  are 
quoted  from  a  small  but  exceedingly  valuable  compilation  by  the 
Bishop  of  New-Jersey  ;"*  and  yet  it  would  seein  that  he  must  have 
known  something  of  Beza's  work,  for  how  could  he  pronounce 
the  "  Bishop  of  New- Jersey's"  compilation  '^^exceedingly  valuahle" 
unless  he  knew  the  quotations  to  be  correctly  made  1  We  here  give 
the  passage  from  Beza  as  it  is  found  in  his  works,  leaving  the  two 
self-appointed  Prelates  of  Tennessee  and  New-Jersey  to  settle  the 
responsibility  of  mutilation  between  them.  In  reply  to  Saravia, 
Beza  says  :  "Among  so  many  Churches  that  have  been  by  God's 
blessing  reformed  in  our  times,  which  I  pray,  can  you  point  out  to 
me,  that  has  been  rescued  from  the  tyranny  of  Antichrist,  by  those 
her  Bishops,  Archbishops,  Primates,  Metropolitans  %  I  find  indeed 
that  in  Germany,  two  Archbishops  of  Cologne  made  the  attempt, 
but  with  so  little  success  that  they  lost  their  office  besides  in  the 
struggle.  But  if  they  remain  in  the  Reformed  Anglican  Church, 
supported  as  she  is  by  the  authority  of  her  Bishops  and  Archbishops, 
as  it  has  been  her  lot  in  our  memory  to  have  men  of  that  order  not 
only  distinguished  martyrs  of  God,  but  also  most  excellent  Pastors  and 

Doctors,    LET    HER    INDEED    ENJOY    THAT    SINGULAR    KINDNESS  OF    GoD, 

*  Discourses,  p.  81. 


208  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

which  I  pray  may  be  perpetual  unto  her,  of  which  matter  we  shall 
treat  more  fully  at  chapter  25." 

The  reader  will  perceive  that  in  the  mutilated  quotation  of  Bish- 
hop  Otey,  and  with  the  aid  of  the  word  "Episcopacy"  inserted  in 
parentheses,  he  makes  Beza  represent  "Episcopacy^'  to  be  the  "sin- 
gular kindness  of  God,"  which  the  Church  of  England  enjoyed  ! 
Whereas  it  is  evident  from  the  entire  passage,  that  it  is  the  enlightened 
piety  of  the  early  English  Bishops  which  he  esteems  a  "singular  kind- 
ness," and  which  he  prays  may  be  perpetual !  And  what  Presby- 
terian cannot  heartily  join  in  such  a  prayer,  while  at  the  same  time 
he  may  consistently  oppose  the  system  of  Prelacy,  as  Beza  ably  does 
in  this  very  work  1  In  another  part  of  this  same  work,  Beza  says  : 
"  Those  first  foundations  of  a  reformed  Church  in  England,  in  the  times 
of  Henry  VIII,  the  English  Bishops  did  not  certainly  lay,  but  rather 
opposed  with  all  their  might."  He  also  says  in  a  letter  to  John  Knox, 
the  Scottish  Reformer :  "I  wish  you,  dear  Knox,  and  the  other  brethren, 
to  bear  this  also  in  mind,  which  is  even  now  passing  before  our  eyes, 
that  as  the  Bishops  begat  the  Papacy,  so  the  pseudo-Bishops,  the  relics 
of  the  Papacy,  will  bring  infidelity  into  the  world.  This  pestilence  let 
all  avoid  who  wish  the  safety  of  the  Church ;  and  since  you  have 
succeeded  in  banishing  it  from  Scotland,  never,  I  pray  you,  admit  it 
again,  however  it  may  flatter  you  with  the  specious  pretext  of  promot- 
ing unity,  which  deceived  many  of  the  ancients,  even  the  best  of  them." 

The  foregoing  passages  show  what  Beza  thought  of  Prelates  and 
Prelacy.  The  following  express  clearly  his  real  sentiments  touching  the 
scriptural  polity.  In  his  work  entitled  "De  Ecclesia,"  sec.  29,  he 
says  :  "The  authority  of  all  Pastors  is  equal  ;  also  their  office 
is  one  and  the  same."  In  the  same  work,  sec.  32  :  "At  length 
we  come  to  the  third  species  of  ecclesiastical  offices,  to  wit,  that 
which  pertains  to  spiritual  jurisdiction.  Now  this  jurisdiction  was 
committed  to  Presbyters  properly  so  called,  whose  name  implies  as 
much  as  though  you  should  call  them  Senators  or  Elders.  The 
Apostle,  in  I  Cor.  12  :  28,  calls  them  governors  and  rulers.  And 
Christ  designates  the  College  of  Presbyters,  the  Church,  because  in 
them  resided  the  supreme  power,  in  the  government  of  the  Church." 
Speaking  of  the  "angel  of  the  Church,"  mentioned  Rev.  2  :  1,  he 
says  :  "From  this  to  try  to  prove  the  establishment  of  that  order  of 
Episcopacy,  which  was  afterward  introduced  into  the  Church  of 
God  by  human  arrangements,  is  what  neither  can  nor  ought  to  be 
done."     These   passages  speak   without   an  interpreter.     To   claim 


FURTHER     MISREPRESENTATIONS. 


209 


Theodore  Beza  as  an  advocate  for  the  Divine  right  of  Prelacy  is  not 
a  new  thing  under  the  sun,  but  yet  appears  a  very  strange  thing, 
with  the  above  passages  on  record. 

Bishop  Otey  is  quite  as  unfortunate  in  representing  the  sentiments 
of  Calvin,  as  those  of  Beza.  The  passage  he  has  quoted  from  him 
is  also  pitifully  garbled.  He  has  omitted  a  part  from  the  middle  of  it, 
having  in  this  instance  a  better  liking  for  the  extremes,  than  in  the 
case  of  Tertullian,  (see  page  139,)  where  he  omitted  both  the  begin- 
ing  and  end ;  and  the  part  he  has  given  is  badly  translated.  The 
following  will  show  his  unfair  dealing.  The  words  in  brackets  will 
exhibit  the  portion  suppressed. 


Otey's  Calvin  : 
"If  they  will  give  us  such  an 
hierarchy,  in  which  the  Bishop 
have  such  a  jp^e-eminence  as  that 
they  do  not  refuse  to  be  subject 
imto  Christ,  I  will  confess  that 
they  are  worthy  of  all  anathemas, 
if  any  such  there  be,  who  will  not 
reverence  it,  and  submit  themselves 
to  it,  with  the  utmost  obedience 
— Discourses,  p,  77,  Appendix. 


Calvin  as  he  is  : 
"If  they  present  to  us  such  a 
hierarchy,  in  which  Bishops  may 
have  such  a  precedence  that  they 
may  not  refuse  to  be  subject  unto 
Christ,  [that  they  may  depend  on 
him  and  be  referred  to  him  as  their 
only  head  ;  in  which  they  may  cul- 
tivate among  themselves  such  a 
brotherly  fellowship,  as  that  their 
only  bond  of  union  be  his  truth  ;] 
then  surely,  if  any  be  found  who 
do  not  reverence  it,  and  submit  to 
it  with  the  utmost  obedience,  I 
confess  that  there  is  no  anathema 
of  which  they  are  not  worthy."* 
It  seems  to  be  taJcenfor  granted  by  Bishop  Otey,  (as  usual,)  that  by 
"  Bishops,"  Calvin  must  necessarily  mean  Prelates,  and  that  by  "hie- 
rarchy," he  must  mean  Prelacy  in  full  blast.  But  in  his  Institutes, 
Book  4,  chap.  5,  he  speaks  of  "that  hierarchy  or  spiritual  government'* 
established  by  the  Apostles  ;  and  in  the  same  chapter  he  directly  as- 
serts that  this  "  spiritual  government  "  was  Presbyterian  in  form. — 
He  frequently  uses  the  term  "hieiarchy"  in  this  sense.  From  this 
it  is  evident,  that  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  he   means  only 

*  The  following  is  the  original :  "  Talem  nobis  hierarchiam  si  exiiibeant ;  in  qua  sic 
fmmcoM(Epiacopi,utChrist0  6ubcsse  non  recusent ;  ut  ab  illo,  tanquam  unico  capite, 
pendeant,  et  ad  ipsum  referantur ;  in  qua  sic  inter  se  fraternam  societatem  coiant,  ut  non 
alio  nodo,  quam  ejus  veritate,  sint  colligati;  turn  vero  nullo  non  anathemate  dignos  fa- 
tcar,siquierunt,  qui  non  earn  reverentur,  summaque  obedientia  obscrvenl.''— 2?e  Neces- 
sUate  Rrformandae  ^cclesiae. 


210  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

that  scriptural  Episcopacy  (by  'parochial  Bishops)  for  which  all  Pres- 
byterians contend,  and  not  Prelacy.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  following 
passages  are  by  no  means  ambiguous,  as  showing  what  he  deems  to 
be  the  true  scriptural  polity.  Calvin. says  :  "  The  reason  why  I  have 
used  the  terms  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  and  pastors  and  ministers, 
promiscuously,  is,  because  the  Scriptures  do  the  same;  for  they  give  the 
title  of  Bishops  to  all  persons  whatever  who  were  ministers  of  the 
Gospel."*  In  his  commentary  on  Phil.  1:  1,  he  says  :  "  Hence  it  may 
be  inferred,  that  the  term  Bishop  is  common  to  all  ministers  of  the 
Word  ;  as  he  (Paul)  assigns  several  Bishops  to  one  Church.  Bishop 
and  Pastor  are  therefore  synonymous.  And  this  is  one  of  the  pas- 
sages cited  to  prove  it  by  Jerome,  in  the  Epistle  to  Evagrius,  and  in 
the  exposition  of  the  Epistle  to  Titus.  Afterwards,  the  usage  became 
prevalent,  that  he  whom  the  Presbyters  of  each  Church  appointed  to 
preside  over  their  own  consistory,  should  alone  be  called  Bishop.  This, 
however,  has  arisenjrom  human,  custom;  it  is  not  at  all  supported  hy  the  au- 
thority of  Scripture.'^  In  his  commentary  on  Acts  20:28,  he  says: 
"Whence  we  conclude,  that  according  to  scriptural  use,  Bishops  inno 
respect  differ  from  Preshyteis;  but  by  corruption  and  abuse  it  came  to 
pass,  that  those  who  presided  in  every  city  began  to  be  called  Bishops.  I 
say  abuse,  not  because  it  may  be  an  evil  that  some  one  in  every  consis- 
tory should  have  precedence,  but  because  the  boldness  with  which 
men  hesitate  not  to  change  the  language  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  tAvist- 
ing  scriptural  terms  to  their  own  usage,  is  by  no  means  to  be  tolerat- 
ed." Again  he  says,  when  speaking  of  the  change  introduced  by  plac- 
ing one  Presbyter  above  the  rest  and  calling  him  Bishop  :  "  That  this 
arrangement  was  introduced  by  human  agreement,  on  account  of  the 
necessity  of  the  times,  is  acknowledged  by  the  ancient  writers  them- 
selves."t 

The  foregoing  passages  show  clearly  that  Calvin  deemed  all  minis- 
ters of  the  Gospel,  by  Divine  authority  to  be  officially  equal;  and  a  vol- 
ume might  be  filled  from  his  writings  to  prove  the  same  thing.  But 
not  a  sentence,  we  hesitate  not  to  affirm,  can  be  produced  from  his  pen, 
going  to  show  that  he  believed  in  the  Divine  institution  of  Prelacy  as 
now  upheld  by  its  advocates.  Neither  can  it  be  shown  from  any  of 
his  voluminous  writings,  that  he  justified  his  establishment  of  Pros  - 
byterian  government  by  the  "  plea  of  necessity,'"  as  Bishop  Otey  false- 
ly charges.  We  challenge  him  to  the  proof  on  these  points.  Calvin 
NEVER  PLEADED  ANY  SUCH  NECESSITY,  but  always  defended  the  govern- 

*  institutes,  Book  4,  ch-  8,  sec.  8,  t  lastitutea,  Book  4,  ch.  4. 


FURTHER     MISREPRESENTATIONS.  211 

ttient  and  discipline  by  Presbyters  as  entirely  conformed,  to  the  Word 
of  God.  And  moreover,  he  himself  puts  forth  this  bold  avowal  in  one 
of  his  letters,  when  speaking  of  the  reformation  of  the  Church:  "No- 
body has  yet  appeared  who  could  prove  that  we  have  altered  any  one 
thing  which  God  has  commanded,  or  that  we  have  appointed  any  new 
thing  contrary  to  his  Word,  or  that  we  have  turned  aside  from  the  truth 
to  follow  any  evil  opinion.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  manifest  that  we 
have  reformed  our  Church  merely  hy  God's  Word,  which  is  the  only 
rule  by  which  it  is  to  be  ordered  and  lawfully  defended.  It  is,  indeed, 
an  unjjleasant  work  to  alter  what  has  been  formerly  in  use,  were  it 
not  that  the  order  which  God  has  once  fixed,  must  be  esteemed  hy  us  as 
sacred  and  inviolable;  insomuch  that  if  it  has  for  a  time  been  laid  aside, 
it  must  of  necessity,  (and  whatever  the  consequences  may  be,)  be  re- 
stored AGAIN."  Notwithstanding  all  this,  Bishop  Otey  intends  the  im- 
pression that  Calvin  conceded  the  Divine  right  of  Prelacy,  and  actually 
asserts  that  the  Reformers  above  named  "  pleaded  necessity  to  justify 
their  formation  of  another  and  different  system  of  Church  govern- 
ment !  ! !  " 

In  close  connection  with  these  false  allegations.  Bishop  Otey  calls 
"  Calvin,  the  founder  of  Presbyterianism."*  This  is  ineeed  a  won- 
derful discovery — "  Calvin,  the  founder  of  Presbyteriansm !  "  Had 
he  asserted  that  Benjamin  Franklin  was  the  inventor  of  printing,  he 
would  have  told  what  is  equally  true.  Calvin  wrote  much  to  prove 
that  the  government  by  Presbyters  was  the  polity  of  the  Church  in 
the  days  of  the  Apostle  Paul ;  and  he  maintained  that  in  reforming  the 
Church,  he  and  others  were  only  endeavoring  to  bring  it  back  and  re- 
form  it  according  to  the  Apostolic  model ;  and  many  other  learned 
Reformers  insisted  that  "  Presbyterianism  "  was  at  least  as  ancient  as 
the  Apostles.  But  waiving  all  this,  does  not  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennes- 
see" know  what  every  reader  of  history  may  know,  that  "  Presbyteri- 
anism "  was  introduced  into  the  city  of  Geneva  before  Calvin  ever  set 
foot  within  its  gates,  and  while  he  was  yet  in  his  minority  and  in  com- 
munion toith  the  Church  of  Rome'i  Is.  Bishop  Otey  more  ignorant  than 
a  school-boyl — or  does  he  knowingly  impose  upon  his  readers?  The 
proof  that  Calvin  did  not  "  found  "  Presbyterianism  may  be  given 
from  an  'Episcopalian  too  !t 

*  Discourses,  p.  16. 

t  Dr.  Heylin,  a  distinguished  Prelatist,  and  withal  a  bitter  enemy  of  "Presbyterian- 
ism," says  :  "  In  this  condition  it  (Geneva  "i  continued  till  the  year  1528,  when  those  of 
Berne,  after  a  public  disputation  held,  had  made  an  alteration  in  religion,  defacing  ima- 


212  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

Bishop  Otey  has  misrepresented  Calvm  on  other  points ;  but  we 
have  already  occupied  so  much  space  in  setting  him  right,  that  we  are 
inclined  to  pass  these  by  altogether. 

And  Luther  is  claimed  too  as  conceding  the  Divine  right  of  Prela- 
cy !  We  have  been  unable  to  find  the  single  passage  which  Bishop 
Otey  professes  to  give  from  him ;  but  admitting  it  to  be  all  right,  to 
what  does  it  amount]  Here  it  is  :  "I  allow  that  each  State  ought  to 
have  one  Bishop  of  its  own  by  Divine  right ;  which  I  show  from  Paul 
saying — '  for  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete.'  "  Really,  this  does  not 
look  much  like  the  reasoning  of  the  great  Reformer.  It  would  better 
become  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee."  The  following  passages  show 
a  style  of  reasoning  more  in  keeping  with  the  character  of  their  au- 
thor. In  remarking  on  Titus  1:  chap,  5,  he  says  :  "It  is  manifest,  al- 
so, that  by  the  same  Divine  authority,  he  (Paul)  makes  Preshyters  and 
Bishops  to  he  one  and  the  same  thing  ;  for  he  says  that  Preshyters  are 
to  be  ordained  in  every  city,  if  any  can  be  found  who  are  blameless, 
because  a  Bishop  ought  to  be  blameless."  There  is  some  point  in  this 
argument.  Again,  commenting  on  Phil,  1:  1,  he  says:  "  This  now  is 
the  third  instance  in  the  writings  of  Paul,  in  which  we  see  what  God 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  hath  appointed,  to-wit:  that  those  alone,  truly  and 
of  right,  are  to  be  called  Bishops  who  have  the  care  of  a  Jlock  in  the 
ministry  of  the  Word,  the  care  of  the  poor,  and  the  administration  of  the 

ges,  and  innovating  all  things  in  the  Church  on  liie  Zuinglian  principles.  Vireius  and 
Farelius,  two  men  exceeding  studious  of  the  Rerormatiou,  had  gained  some  footing  in 
Geneva,  about  that  time,  and  labored  with  the  Bishop  to  admit  of  such  alterations  as 
had  been  newly  made  in  Berne.  But  when  they  saw  no  hopes  of  prevaling  with  him, 
they  practised  on  the  lower  part  of  the  people,  with  whom  they  had  gotten  most  es- 
teem, and  travelled  so  effectually  with  them  in  it,  that  the  Bishop  and  his  Clergy,  in  a 
popular  tumult,  are  expelled  the  town,  never  to  be  restored  to  their  former  power.  Af- 
ter which  they  proceeded  to  reform  the  Church,  defacing  images,  and  following  in  all 
points  the  example  of  Berne,  as  by  Viretus  and  Farelius  they  had  been  instructed;  whose 
doings  in  the  same  were  afterwards  countenanced  and  approved  by  Calvin,  as  himself 
confesseth."  In  confirmation  of  this,  Calvin  himself  says,  in  a  letter  to  Cardinal  Sado- 
let :  "  That  the  religious  system  of  Geneva  had  been  instituted,  and  its  ecclesiastical  gO' 
vernment  reformed  before  he  was  called  thither;  but  that  what  had  been  done  hy  Farel  and 
Viret,  he  heartily  approved,  and  strove,  by  all  means  in  his  power,  to  preserve  and  estab- 
lish." Beza  and  Adam,  in  their  lives  of  Calvin,  state  that  in  1536  Calvin  went  to  Ge- 
neva without  any  thought  of  settlmg  there— that  Farel  and  Viret,  then  Fastors  in  Gen 
neva  importuned  him  to  become  associated  with  them — that  he  declined;  but  subsequent- 
ly, he  submitted  him.self  to  the  will  of  the  Presbytery,  and  was  elected  Pastor,  &c.  From 
this  it  appears  that  there  was  a  Presbytery  in  Geneva  before  Calvin  went  there.  Indeed,  it 
ii  matter  of  historical  certainty,  that  ministerial  parity,  and  the  government  of  the 
Church  by  Presbyters  and  Presbyteries,  were  in  use  extensively  before  the  public  ministry 
of  Calvin  began,  and  before  any  of  his  writings  had  appeared.  And  yet,  the  learned 
"  Bishop  of  Tennessee  "  represents  "  Calvin  "  as  "  the /oureier  of  Presbyterianism  1  " 


FURTHER     MISREPRESENTATIONS.  215 

Sacraments,  as  is  the  case  with  Parish  Ministers  in  our  age."  On 
I.  Peter,  5:  1,  he  says :  "Here  you  see  that  Peter,  in  the  same  manner 
as  Paul  had  done,  uses  the  terms  Presbyter  and  Bishop  to  signify  the 
same  thing."  On  the  second  verse  of  the  same  chapter  he  says  :  "  I 
have  often  said,  that  if  we  would  wish  to  have  the  Christian  common- 
wealth rightly  established,  it  is  necessary  that  there  be,  in  every  city, 
THREE  OR  FOUR  BisHOPS,  who  should  Superintend  the  Church,  and  if 
any  thing  should  be  at  any  time  delinquent  or  lost,  restore  it."  What! 
"  three  or  four  Bishops  in  every  city  !  " — and  yet,  Luther  an  advocate 
of  Prelacy !     This  looks  very  like  it,  indeed  ! 

The  foi'egoing  extracts  show  Luther's  view  of  the  scriptural  minis- 
try— tJiat  all  Pastors  were  equal.  It  is  readily  granted  that  Luther  ad- 
vocated a  limited  superintendency  to  be  exercised  by  one  minister  over 
others,  the  superintendent  being  styled  "  Bishop ;"  and  this  has  been 
sometimes  claimed  by  our  opponents  as  conceding  virtually  the  Divine 
right  of  their  whole  prelatical  system.  But  not  so.  His  superinten- 
dents were  like  those  at  present  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church- 
only  Presbyters,  by  common  consent  placed  above  other  Pastors,  but 
yet,  not  claiming  any  superiority  oiranh  or  order,  and  much  less  claim- 
ing it  upon  Divine  autohority.  And  what  must  forever  settle  this 
question,  is  the  fact  that  Luther,  (though  only  a  Presbyter,)  at  the  re- 
quest of  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  when  the  Episcopate  or  superintenden- 
cy in  the  Electorate  became  vacant  in  1542,  did  actually  consecrate  Ams- 
dorf  Bishop  of  that  l)iocesef  Is  it  not  then  ridiculous  to  cite  Luther 
as  admitting  the  Divine  right  of"  Bishops,"  (in  the  prelatical  sense)  while 
he,  a  Presbyter,  claimed  and  exercised  the  right  to  ordain  a  Bishop? 
Now  take  the  passage  Bishop  Otey  has  professed  to  cite,  and  you  will 
easily  understand  what  Luther  meant  by  "  Bishop  "  as  there  used. 
Besides  all  this,  Gerhard  and  Zanchius  both  state  that  Luther  was  or- 
dained a  Presbyter  in  the  Romish  Church  in  1507  ;  and  his  biograph- 
er states  that  soon  after  becoming  a  Reformer,  he  actually  did  ordain 
ministers,  and  continued  to  do  so  for  nearly  thirty  years  ;  and  that  "  on 
Sunday  (just  before  his  death)  he  ordained  two  ministers  of  the  Word 
of  God,  after  the  Apostles'  manner,"  These  acts  of  ordination  were 
exercised  in  virtue  of  his  own  Presbyterian  orders. 

Melancthon  is  also  claimed.  After  quoting  the  well  known  pas- 
sage from  Jerome,  Melancthon  goes  on  to  say  :  "  Therefore,  Jerome 
teaches  that  the  grades  of  Bishop  and  Presbyter  or  Pastor  have  been 
distinguished  by  human  authority.  And  the  case  itself  speaks  thus, 
because  their  pov)er  is  the  same,  as  I  have  already  said.     But  one  thing 


214  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

afterwards  made  a  difference  between  Bishops  and  Pastors,  viz  :  Or- 
dination; because  it  was  appointed  that  one  Bishop  should  ordain  min- 
isters in  several  Churches.  IBut  as  the  grades  of  Bishop  and  Pastor 
are  not  different  by  Divine  right,  it  is  manifest  that  ordination  perform- 
ed by  a  Pastor  in  his  own  Church,  is  sanctioned  by  Divine  authority."* 
This  is  the  deliberate  judgment  of  Melancthon ;  and  much  more  to 
the  same  purpose  might  be  shown  from  his  own  writings.  Now  grant- 
ing that  he  did  make  the  seeming  concessions  which  Bishop  Otey's 
extracts  may  lead  some  to  suppose,  what  does  it  prove?  Why,  just 
what  every  body  knew  before,  that  Philip  Melancthon  was  a  very  tim- 
orous man,  and  was  not  always  prepared  to  carry  out  his  own  princi- 
ples ! — and  this  is  all  it  proves.  He  foolishly  thought  that  the  disord- 
ers of  the  Church  could  be  removed  by  improving  upon  the  scriptural 
polity  !  The  "  Secretary  of  the  Reformation,"  in  his  famous  "  Apolo- 
gy," made  some  unhappy  concessions  to  the  Papists  too,  which  have 
exposed  him  to  deserved  censure. 

Having  thus  fully  exposed  Bishop  Otey's  misrepresentation  of  the 
sentiments  of  the  aforementioned  Reformers,  we  proceed  to  show,  from 
testimony  which  cannot  be  evaded  or  denied,  that  many  of  the  most 
distinguished  of  the  British  Reformers,  on  the  other  hand,  while  they 
upheld  Prelacy,  as  best  suited  to  their  circumstances,  and  as  not  prohib- 
ited by  the  Word  of  God,  yet  admitted  the  entire  scriptural  validity  of 
Presbyterian  ordination  and  government,  declaring  that  in  Apostolic 
times,  there  was  no  difference  between  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  either 
in  rank  or  powers. 

II.  Testimony  and  concessions  to  the  Scriptural  validity  of  Presbyte- 
rian Ordination  and  Government  by  the  most  eminent  Divines  of  the 
Church  of  England,  at,  and  subsequent  to  the  Reformation. 

Bishop  Burnet,  in  his  History  of  the  Reformation  in  the  Church  of 
England,  says:  "After  some  of  the  sheets  of  this  history  were 
wrought  off,  I  met  with  manuscripts  of  great  authority,  out  of  which  I 
have  collected  several  particulars  that  give  a  clear  light  to  the  proceed- 
ings in  those  times.  1  shall  here  add  them."  One  of  these  docu- 
ments is  entitled  "A  Declaration  made  of  the  functions  and  Divine 
institution  of  Bishops  and  Priests — an  original,  "  and  was  adopted  by 
a  "  Convocation  of  Archbishops,  Bishops,  and  divines,  in  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII."  Burnet  remarks  on  this  document :  "  Another  thing 
is,  that  both  in  this  writing,  and  in  the  '  Necessary  Erudition  of  a 
Christian  Man,'  Bishops  and  Priests  are  spoken  of  as  one  and  the  same 

*  De  potestate  et  phmatu  Papae. 


PPwELATlCAL    CONCESSIONS.  215 

office.  It  had  teen  the  common  style  of  that  age,  to  reckon  Bishops  and 
Priests  as  the  same  office.''  But  let  the  document  speak  for  itself. 
Among  other  passages  in  ppint,  occurs  the  following:  "Albeit,  the  Holy 
Fathers  of  the  Church  which  succeeded  the  Apostles,  minded  to  beauti- 
fy and  ornate  the  Church  of  Christ  with  all  those  things  which  were 
commended  in  the  Temple  of  the  Jews,  did  devise  not  only  certain 
other  ceremonies  than  be  before  rehearsed,  *****  but  did 
also  institute  certain  inferior  orders  or  degrees  ;****** 
wherein  they  followed  undoubtedly  the  example  and  rites  used  in  the 
Old  Testament :  yet,  the  truth  is,  that  in  the  New  Testament  there  is 
no  mention  made  of  any  degrees  or  distinctions  in  orders,  hut  only  of 
Deacons  or  Ministers,  and  of  Priests  or  Bishops;  nor  is  there  any  word 
spoken  of  any  other  ceremony  used  in  the  conferring  of  this  sacra- 
ment, but  only  prayer,  and  the  imposition  of  the  Bishop's  hands."  To 
this  document  are  subscribed  the  names  of  "  Thomas  (Lord)  Crom- 
well, the  King's  Vicar  General;"  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and 
York  ;  the  Bishops  of  London,  Durham,  Lincoln,  Bath,  Ely,  Bangor, 
Salisbury,  Hereford,  Worcester,  Rochester,  Chichester;  besides  a 
great  number  of  the  most  eminent  and  learned  men  of  that  day,  in 
both  Church  and  State. 

Burnet  also  mentions  another  famous  book  of  those  times,  called  a 
"  Declaration  of  the  Christian  doctrine  for  the  Necessary  Erudition 
of  a  Christian  Man."  This  was  published  by  royal  authority,  the 
King  being  the  supreme  head  of  the  Church,  and  was  like  the  other 
work,  drawn  up  by  a  "  Convocation."  In  the  chapter  of  orders,  the 
Convocation  expressly  resolve,  "  that  Priests  and  Bishops,  by  God's 
law,  are  one  and  the  same  ;  and  that  the  power  of  ordination  and  ex- 
communication belongs  equally  to  both." 

The  above  views  are  expressed  in  public  documents,  and  show  the 
PUBLIC  SENTIMENT  of  the  Reformers  in  the  Church  of  England.  A 
few  testimonies  of  distinguished  individuals  will  now  be  given,  select- 
ed from  several  standard  authorities. 

Archbishop  Cranmer,  then  the  Primate  of  the  Church  of  England, 
says  :  "  The  Bishops  and  Priests  were  at  one  time,  and  were  no  two 
things ;  but  both  one  office,  in  the  beginning  of  Christ's  religion." 

Dr.  Whitaker,  writing  against  Popery  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Eliza- 
beth, says  :  "  I  confess  that  there  was  originally  no  difference  between 
a  Presbyter  and  a  Bishop.  Luther  and  the  other  heroes  of  the  Refor- 
mation, were  Presbyters,  even  according  to  the  ordination  of  the  Ro- 
mish Church ;  and  therefore,  they  were,  jure  Divino,  Bishops,     Con- 


216  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

sequently,  whatever  belongs  to  Bishops,  belongs  also,  jure  Divino,  to 
themselves.  As  for  Bishops  being  afterwards  placed  over  Presbyters, 
that  was  a  human  arrangement  for  the  removal  of  schisms,  as  the  his- 
tories of  the  times  testify." 

Dr.  Cox  :  "  Although  by  Scripture,  (as  St.  Hierome  saith,)  Priests 
and  Bishops  be  one,  and  therefore  the  one  not  before  the  other ;  yet 
Bishops  as  they  be  now,  were  after  Priests ;  and  therefore  made  by 
Priests." 

Dr.  Holland,  King's  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Oxford  :  "  That  to  af- 
firm the  office  of  Bishop  to  be  different  from  that  of  Presbyter,  and 
superior  to  it,  is  most  false  ;  contrary  to  Scripture,  to  the  Fathers,  to 
the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England ;  yea,  to  the  very  school-men 
themselves." 

Bishop  Jewel,  in  reply  to  Harding,  the  Jesuit :  "  The  Apostle  plain- 
ly teaches  that  Bishops  and  Priests  are  all  one." 

Bishop  Morton  in  his  "  Catholic  Apology,"  addressed  to  Papists, 
declares  :  "  That  the  powers  of  order  and  jurisdiction  which  they  as- 
cribe to  Bishops,  doth,  by  Divine  right,  belong  to  all  other  Presbyters  ; 
and  that  to  ordain  is  their  ancient  right." 

Bishop  Burnet,  in  his  Vindication  of  the  Church  and  State  of 
Scotland  :  "I  acknowledge  Bishop  and  Presbyter  to  be  one  and  the 
same  office."  Again  he  says  :  "And  I  more  willingly  incline  to 
believe  Bishops  and  Presbyters  to  be  the  same  office,  since  the  names 
of  Bishop  and  Presbyter  are  used  for  the  same  thing  in  Scripture,  and 
are  also  used  promiscuously  by  the  writers  of  the  first  two  centuries." 

Dr.  Raignolds,  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  university  of  Oxford, 
in  a  letter  to  Sir  Francis  Knollys,  in  15SS,  says  :  "All  that  have 
labored  in  reforming  the  Church  for  500  years  past,  taught  that  all 
Pastors,  be  they  entitled  Bishops  or  Priests,  have  equal  authority  and 
power  hy  God's  word  ;  as  first  the  Waldenses,  next  Marsilius  Peta- 
vinus,  then  Wickliffe  and  his  disciples  ;  afterwards  Huss  and  the 
Hussites  ;  and  last  of  all,  Luther,  Calvin,  Brentius,  Bullinger,  and 
Musculus.  Among  ourselves,  we  have  Bishops,  the  Queen's  Profes- 
sors of  Divinity  in  our  universities  ;  and  other  learned  men,  as  Brad- 
ford, Lambert,  Jewel,  Pilkinton,  Humphreys,  Fulke,  who  all  agree 
in  this  matter ;  and  so  do  all  divines  beyond  sea  that  I  ever  read, 
and  doubtless  many  more  whom  I  never  read.  But  why  do  I  speak%f 
particular  persons  1  It  is  the  common  judgment  of  the  Reformed 
Chui'ches  of  Helvetia,  Savoy,  France,  Scotland,  Germany,  Hungary, 
Poland,  the   Low  Countries,  and  our  own,  (the  Church  of  England.) 


PRELATICAL  CONCESSIONS.  217 

Wherefore,  since  Dr.  Bancroft  will  certainly  never  pretend  that  an 
*kercsy^  [the  denial  of  the  superiority,  by  Divine  right,  of  Bishops 
over  Presbyrers,]  condemned  by  the  consent  of  the  whole  Church  in 
its  most  flourishing  times,  was  yet  accounted  a  sound  and  Christian 
doctrine  by  all  these  I  have  mentioned,  I  hope  he  will  acknowledge 
that  he  was  mistaken  when  he  asserted  the  superiority  which  Bishops 
HAVE  AMONG  US  over  the  clergy,  to  be  God's  own  ordinance." 

The  following  copy  of  a  license,  dated  April  6,  1582,  granted  to 
the  "Rev.  John  Morrison,  a  Presbyterian  minister,"  by  Archbishop 
Grindal,  shows  how  ordination  hy  Presbyters  was  then  viewed  :  "Since 
you,  the  said  John  Morrison,  were  admitted  and  ordained  to  sacred 
orders  and  the  holy  ministry  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  according 
to  the  laudable  form  and  rite  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Scotland, 
we,  therefore,  as  much  as  lies  in  us,  and  as  by  right  we  may,  approving 
and  ratifying  the  form  of  your  ordination,  and  preferment,  done  in 
such  manner  aforesaid,  grant  unto  you  a  license  and  faculty,  that 
in  such  orders,  by  you  taken,  you  may,  and  have  power,  in  any  con- 
venient places,  in  and  throughout  the  whole  province  of  Canterbury, 
to  celebrate  Divine  offices,  and  to  minister  the  sacrements,"  &c. 
The  Primate  of  the  Church  of  England  here  pronounces  ordination 
by  Presbyters  not  only   valid  but  "laudable." 

In  the  reign  of  Charles  I,  and  during  those  troubles  with  his  Par- 
liament which  ended  in  his  death,  the  King  was  urged  to  consent  to 
a  proposed  act  for  abolishing  Episcopacy,  as  the  state  religion.  He 
refused,  alleging  among  other  objections,  that  the  Episcopal  form 
of  government  was  more  friendly  to  monarchy  than  the  Presbyterian. 
He  also  pleaded  "conscience."  He  addressed  a  letter  to  his  friends 
and  counsellors,  Lord  Jermyn,  Lord  Culpepper,  and  Mr.  Ashburn- 
ham,  (all  Episcopalians,)  in  which  he  says  :  "Show  me  any  precedent 
wherever  Presbyterial  government  and  regal  was  together,  wdthout 
perpetual  rebellions  ;  which  was  the  cause  which  necessitated  the 
King  my  father  to  change  that  government  in  Scotland.  And  even  in 
France,  where  they  are  but  upon  tolerance,  (which  in  likelihood 
should  cause  moderation,)  did  they  ever  sit  still  so  long  as  they  had 
power  to  rebel  ?  And  it  cannot  be  otherwise,  for  the  ground  of 
their  doctrine  is  anti-monarchical.  Indeed,  to  prove  that  clearly, 
would  require  more  time  and  a  better  pen  than  I  have.  I  will  say, 
without  hyperbole,  that  there  was  not  a  wiser  man  since  Solomon, 
than  he  who  said — no  Bishop,  no  King."  To  this  royal  epistle  the 
above-named  gentlemen  replied  :    "If  by  'conscience'  your  meaning 


218  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

is,  that  you  are  obliged  to  do  all  that  is  in  your  power  to  support  and 
maintain  that  function  of  Bishops,  as  that  which  is  the  most  ancient, 
reverend,  and  pious,  government  of  the  Church,  we  fully  and  heartily 
concur  with  you  therein.  But  if  by  'conscience,'  is  intended  to 
assert,  that  Episcopacy  is  jure  Divino  exclusive,  whereby  no  Pro- 
testant or  rather  Christian  Church  can  be  acknowledged  for  such 
without  a  Bishop,  we  must  therein  crave  leave  wJiolly  to  differ.  And 
if  we  be  in  error,  we  are  in  good  company,  tfiere  not  being,  as  we 
have  cause  to  believe,  six  persons  of  the  Protestant  religion  of  the 
other  opinion.  Thus  much  we  can  add,  that,  at  the  treaty  of  Ux- 
bridge,  none  of  your  divines  then  present,  though  much  provoked 
thereunto,  would  maintain  that  (we  might  say  uncharitable)  opinion ; 
no,  not  privately  among  your  commissioners." 

Dr.  Warner,  an  English  Episcopal  historian,  says  that  "Arch- 
bishop Bancroft  was  the  first  man  in  the  Church  of  England  who 
preached  up  the  Divine  right  of  Episcopacy." 

Bishop  White  of  Pennsylvania,  who  has  been  styled  the  "father 
of  the  Episcopal  Church"  in  this  country,  published  a  work  entitled 
"The  case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  the  United  States  con- 
sidered," in  which  the  above  passage  from  Dr.  Warner  is  quoted 
with  approbation,  and  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the  doctrine 
which  founds  the  system  of  Prelacy  on  Divine  right,  was  never 
embraced  by  the  great  body  of  the  most  esteemed  divines  in  the 
Church  of  England,  One  object  of  Bishop  White's  work  was  to 
recommend  a  temporary  departure  from  the  line  of  Episcopal  suc- 
cession, on  the  ground  that  Bishops  could  not  then  be  had,  it  being 
impossible  to  obtain  the  "thing  wonderful," — "succession's  chain" — 
from  England,  while  the  difficulties  growing  out  of  the  Revolu- 
tionary war  continued.  He  writes  as  follows  :  "Now  if  even  those 
who  hold  Episcopacy  to  be  of  Divine  right,  conceive  the  obligation 
to  it  not  to  be  binding  when  that  idea  would  be  destructive  of 
public  worship  ;  much  more  must  they  think  so,  who  indeed  venerate 
and  prefer  that  form  as  the  most  ancient  and  eligible,  hut  without 
any  idea  of  Divine  right  in  the  case.  This  the  author  believes  to  be 
the  sentiment  of  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  in  America  ;  in 
which  respect  they  have  in  their  favor,  unquestionably,  the  sense  of 
the  Church  of  England ;  and  as  he  believes,  the  oj)inions  of  the 
most  distinguished  Prelates  for  piety,  virtue,  and  abilities." 

We  have  now  given  the  most  unequivocal  testimony,  proving  that 
in  former  days,  the  "great  body'^  of  English  and  American  Episco- 


PRELATICAL    CONCESSIONS.  219 

palians,  repudiated  as  false,  the  sentiment  no^v  so  common  on  both 
sides  of  the  Atlantic,  that  the  system  of  Prelacy  is  founded  on  the 
Word  of  God,  in  such  a  sense  as  to  make  it  obligatory  on  all  Chris- 
tians to  adopt  that  form  of  polity ;  and  in  such  a  sense  as  to  deny  to 
other  denominations  the  name,  rights,  privileges,  and  fellowship,  of 
Churches  of  Christ.     That   unholy   dogma   is    a   refinement   op 

MODERN    CHARITY  ! 

A  question  may  now  arise  in  the  mind  of  the  reader — If  the  sen- 
timents above  expressed  were  general  among  the  English  Reformers, 
•  why  did  they  adhere  to  and  maintain  the  system  of  Prelacy  %  This  is 
easily  answered,  from  their  own  mouths. 

Stilhngfleet  says  in  his  Irenicum  :  "I  doubt  not  but  to  make  it 
evident,  that  the  main  ground  for  settling  Episcopal  government  in 
this  nation  was  not  accounted  any  pretence  of  Divine  right,  but  the 
CONVENIENCY  of  that  form  of  Church  government  to  the  state  and 
condition  of  this  Church  at  the  time  of  its  Reformation." 

Dr.  Haweis,  in  his  continuation  of  Milner's  Church  History  can- 
didly acknowledges  :  "As  yet,  [previous  to  1588,]  the  English  Bish- 
ops claimed  not  their  office  by  Divine  right,  h%it  under  the  constitution 
of  their  country  ;  nor  pleaded  for  more  than  two  orders  of  Apostolical 
appointment.  Bishops  and  Deacons." 

According  to  these  statements,  it  was  not  Divine  authority,  but 
merely  human  "conveniencf^  and  expediency,  which  led  the  English 
Reformers  to  maintain  the  system  of  Prelacy  in  preference  to  the 
system  which  the  "great  body"  of  them  acknowledged  to  be  taught 
in  the  Word  of  God  !* 

*  The  truth  is,  the  English  divines  should  be  divided  into  three  classes— the_^rs<  main- 
taining that  no  particular  form  of  Church  government  is  laid  down  in  the  Scriptures, 
which  is  binding  in  all  ages,  but  that  every  Church  is  left  free  to  frame  her  constitution 
according  to  circumstances.  Those  of  this  class  ^re/er  the  prelatical  lorm,  and  some  of 
them  think  it  was  the  primitive  form.  But  they  maintain  it  on  the  ground  of  expedien- 
cy, and  not  of  Divine  authoiily.  The  seco«fi  class  go  a  little  farther,  believing  that  the 
government  by  Bishops  as  superior  to  Presbyters  is  sanctioned  by  the  Apostles,  and  that 
all  Churches  should  follow  their  example.  But  while  they  regard  Prelacy  essential  to  the 
completeness  of  a  Church,  they  do  not  esteem  it  essential  to  its  existence,  but  acknowl- 
edge as  true  Churclies  ot  Christ,  those  organized  on  Presbyterian  principles.  These  two 
classes  undoubtedly  embraced  nineteen-twentieths  of  all  the  English  Prelatists  at  the  time 
of  the  Reformation,  and  forsome  time  afterward-  The  third  class,  which  formerly  was 
a  very  lean  minority,  contend  that  the  prelatical  form  of  Church  government  is  unalter- 
ably fixed  by  Divine  appointment,  that  this  form  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  the 
Church— that  those  "  religious  societies,"  which  have  it  not,  are  "no  Churches,"  but 
"  withered  branches  "—have  no  hope  but  in"  uncovenanted  mercies"— and  some  go  so 
far  ascoollj  to  hand  them  over  to  certain  damnation  !    At  the  head  of  this  class  may 


220  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

III.  Degeneracy  of  Modern  Prelacy,  in  England  and  the  United 
States.  \ 

The  foregoing  views  of  English  and  American  Episcopalians, 
almost  universal  at  a  former  day,  concede  every  material  point  which 
we  claim  for  the  full  scriptural  warrant  of  our  own  system  of  Church 
polity.  If  the  blush  of  shame  shall  ever  mantle  the  cheek  of  their' 
degenerate  children,  it  must  be  when  they  contrast  the  Catholic 
spirit  of  their  fathers,  with  their  own  narrow-minded  bigotry  and 
intolerance. 

It  is  a  truth  too  notorious  to  be  denied,  that  the  spirit  of  unchurh-# 
ing  exclusiveness  has  made  rapid  strides  for  the  last  few  years 
among  the  adherents  of  Prelacy,  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic.  It 
is  now  the  very  common  sentiment  among  them,  that  they  only,  (and 
others,  as  Papists,  who  have  the  prelatical  polity,)  are  the  true 
Church  of  Christ.*  Besides  this,  a  respectable  body  of  English 
divines,  known  as  the  "Oxford  Tract  writers,"  have  revived,  by  their 
publications,  nearly  all  the  worst  errors  of  Popery.  Their  writings 
have  found  favor  to  a  great  extent  in  the  Church  of  England  ;  and 
they  have  been  republished  in  the  United  States,  and  circulated  and 
extensively  recommended  by  the  "Bishops  and  other  clergy"  of 
the  Episcopal  Church.  We  shall  substantiate  these  statements  by  a 
few  facts. 

That  system,  which,  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  has  received  sever- 
al appellations,  as  "Tractarianism,"  fom  its  being  set  forth  in  what  its 
authors  style  the  "Tracts  for  the  Times;"  "Oxfordism,"  from  the 
Tracts  being  written  chiefly  by  men  connected  with  the  University  of 
Oxford,  England;  "  Puseyism,"  from  Dr.  Pusey,  a  leader;  "New- 
mania,"  from  Mr.  Newman,  another  leader ;  (this  name  has  always 
struck  us  as  quite  apropos;)  "  Semi-Popery,"  from  its  advocating  the 
exploded  tenets  of  Popery,  while  yet  professing  adherence  to  the 
creed  of  the  Church  of  England;  and  several  other  names  ; — whose 
friends  are  called  "  Oxfordists,"  "  Tractarians,*'  "  Puseyites,"  "  Pa- 
pists in  disguise,"  "  Newmaniacs"  &c.; — that  system, 

be  placed  the  well  known  persecutor,  Archbishop  Laud,  and  following  in  his  wake,  are 
the  Oxford  Tract  writers  and  their  numerous  and  increasing  admirers,  both  in  the  Eng- 
lish and  American  Episcopal  Churches.  It  is  believed  to  be  susceptible  of  proof,  that  at 
this  moment,  the  "  great  body  "  of  both  the  English  and  American  Episcopal  divines 
are  justly  placed  in  the  last  class,  maintaining  the  prelatical  form  as  essential  to  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Church,  to  the  total  exclusion  of  all  those  millions  in  other  Churches,  whose 
piety  and  holiness  are  the  proof  of  their  covenant  relation  to  Christ  ! 
*  For  full  proof  this,  see  chapter  I.  of  this  work. 


DEGENERACY  OF  MODERN    PRELACY.  221 

1.  Strikes  a  deadl//  blow  at  the  essential/)  of  Scripture  doctrine  and, 
order,  and  tends  to  the  utter  subversion  of  evangelical  Christianity,  as 
may  be  plainly  seen  from  the  following  tenets  which  its  advances  : 

No  iBinisters  are  ordained,  unless  they  have  been  so  by  Prelates 
of  the  "uninterrupted  succession  :"  Tract  No.  1.  The  Episcopal 
authority  is  the  bond  which  unites  Christians  to  Christ  :  No.  52. 
Those  who  are  married  cannot  be  happy  without  '^the  Church's'* 
blessing  :  No.  40.  The  Scriptures  do  not  contain  the  whole  rule  of 
our  duty  :  Nos.  45,  51,  60,  78.  The  Apocrypha  is  approved,  and 
the  book  of  Tobit  declared  to  be  inspired  :  Nos.  38,  82.  Christians 
should  be  guided  by  the  traditions  of  the  Church  :  Nos.  34,  44,  45, 
54.  Christians  should  not  be  guided  by  their  own  judgment  aa.  to 
the  meaning  of  Scripture,  but  by  the  Church  :  Nos.  60,  73,  77  : 
Records,  No.  25.  Holy  oil  should  be  used  in  baptism :  No.  86. 
When  we  go  in  and  out,  we  should  make  the  sign  of  the  cross  on 
our  forehead  ;  and  in  prayer,  turn  to  the  east :  No.  34.  The  Lord's 
Supper  should  be  administered  to  infants,  and  to  those  "dying  and 
insensible  ;"  Preface  to  Vol.  2.  The  sacraments,  and  not  faith,  are 
the  instrument  of  our  justification  :  Pref.  to  Vol.  2.  There  is  the 
real  and  substantial  presence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  in  the 
sacrament :  No.  27.  The  sacrament  is  offered  to  God  as  an  un- 
bloody sacrifice  :  Nos.  34,  36,  38,  42,  74,  81.  Fasting  on  Friday 
and  keeping  Lent  are  strongly  recommended.  They  also  recom- 
mend, "Hard  lodging,  uneasy  garments,  laborious  postures  of  prayer, 
journeys  on  foot,  sufferance  of  cold,"  and  "abstinence  from  snufF 
during  Lent :"  No.  66.  The  duty  and  advantage  of  fraying  for  the 
dead  are  urged  :  Nos.  72,  77.  Dr.  Pusey  in  speaking  of  "prayer 
for  the  dead,"  says  :  "It  is  a  matter  of  sacred  consolation  to  those 
who   feel   themselves  justified  in    using  it."* 

On  the  subject  of  "  Transubstantiation,"  when  comparing  the  mar- 
riage feast  at  Cana  in  Galilee  with  the  Last  Supper,  Mr.  Newman 
observes  :  "  What  was  that  first  miracle  by  which  he  manifested  his 
glory  in  the  former,  but  the  strange  and  awful  change  of  the  element  of 
water  into  wine.  And  what  did  he  in  the  latter  but  change  the  Pas- 
chal Supper  and  the  typical  lamb  into  the  sacrament  of  his  atoning 
sacrifice,  and  the  creatures  of  bread  and  wine  into  the  verities  of  his 
most  precious  bgdy  and,  blood  1  He  began,  his  ministry  loith  a  miracle  ; 
he  ended  it  with  a  greater^  Dr.  Pusey's  celebrated  sermon  on  this 
subject  is  too  well  known.  Speaking  of  the  "Mediatorial  character 
*  Letter  to  the  Bisltop  of  O.\ford. 

D* 


222  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

of  the  Virgin  Mary"  Mr.  Newman  says  :  "As  at  his  first  feast,  he 
had  refused  to  listen  to  his  mother's  prayer,  because  of  the  time,  so 
to  his  Apostles  he  foretold,  at  his  second  feast,  what  the  power  of 
their  prayers  should  be,  by  way  of  cheering  them  on  his  departure, 
'Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  the  Father  in 
my  name,  he  shall  give  it  you.'  In  the  gifts  promised  to  the  Apostles 
after  the  resurrection  we  may  learn  the  present  influence  and  j^ower  of 
the  Mother  of  God."  Of  the  "Monastic  System"  the  same  writer  says  ; 
"If  the  truth  must  be  spoken,  what  are  the  humble  monk,  and  the 
holy  nun,  and  other  regulars,  as  they  are  called,  but  Christians  after 
the  very  patterns  given  us  in  Scripture  ?" 

On  the  vital  subject  of  "Justification"  E.ev.  H.  H.  Froude  asks  in 
his  Remains  :  "Is  it  expedient  to  put  forth  any  paper  on  'the  doctrine 
necessary  to  salvation?'  I  am  led  to  question  whether  justification 
hy  faith  is  an  integral  part  of  this  doctrine."  Kev.  J.  H.  Newman, 
writing  on  Justification,  says  :  "It  is  baptism  and  not  faith  that  is 
the  primary  instrument  of  justification."  In  combatting  what  these 
writers  deem  an  error  in  the  Church  of  England,  they  say  :  "It  is 
now  almost  universally  believed,  that  God  communicates  grace  only 
through  faith,  prayer,  spiritual  contemplation,  communion  with  God  ; 
whilst  it  is  the  Church  and  her  sacramerits,  which  are  the  ordained, 
direct,  visible  means  of  conveying  to  the  soul,  that  which  is  invisible 
and  supernatural.  It  is  said,  for  example,  that  to  administer  the 
Supper  to  infants,  to  dyin<g  persons,  apparently  deprived  of  their 
senses,  however  pious  they  may  have  been  is  a  superstition  ;  and  yet 
these  practices  are  sanctioned  hy  antiquity.  The  essence  of  the 
sectarian  doctrine  is,  to  consideryaiYA  and  not  the  sacraments,  as  the 
means  of  justification,  and  other  evangelical  gifts."* 

The  reader  who  is  conversant  with  revealed  truth,  here  sees  that 
this  system  lays  the  axe  of  pestiferous  error  at  the  very  root  of  all 
that  is  VITAL  in  Christianity  !  Luther  long  since  declared,  and  with 
truth,  that  justification  through  faith  is  the  article  of  a  standing  or  a 
falling  Church.  When  this  is  gone,  all  is  gone.  Bishop  Mcllvaine  of 
Ohio,  speaks  of  this  system  in  a  late  charge  to  his  clergy  as  follows  : 
"The  whole  system  is  one  of  Church,  instead  of  Christ :  priest  instead 
of  Gospel ;  concealment  of  truth,  instead  of  manifestation  of  truth  ; 
ignorant  superstition,  instead  of  enlightened  faith  ;  bondage  where  we 
are  promised  liberty — all  tending  directly  to  load  us  Avith  whatever 
is   odious  in  the   worst  meaning  of  priestcraft,   in  place  of  the  free, 

*  Tr&cis  for  the  Times,  Adv.  to  vol.  2. 


DEGENERACY  OF  MODERN   PRELACY.  223 

affectionate,  enlarging,  elevating,   and  cheerful  liberty  of  a  child  of 
God." 

2.  The  avowed  object  of  the  supporters  of  this  system,  is  to  "unpro- 
testantize"  the  Church  of  England  •  and  of  course,  if  they  succeed, 
the  consequence  will.be  to  lead  it  back  to  Popery. 

They  speak  as  follows  :  "The  task  of  the  true  children  of  the  Ca- 
,tholic  Church,"  says  the  British  Critic,  an  organ  of  the  Oxfordists, 
"is  to  unprotestantize  the  Church."*  Says  Mr.  Palmer,  whose  works 
have  been  highly  recommended  in  this  country  :  "It  is  necessary  to 
reject  entirely,  and  to  anathematize,  the  principle  of  Protestantism, 
as  being  that  of  a  heresy,  with  all  its  forms,  its  sects,  and  its  denom- 
inatiuns."  The  Rev.  H.  H.  Froude,  says  :  "Really,  I  hate  the  Ref- 
ormation and  the  Reformers  more  and  more."  The  same  writer 
says  :  "I  think  people  are  injudicious  who  talk  against  Roman  Ca- 
tholics for  loorshipping  saints,  and  Snoring  the  Virgin,  and  linages." 
"  In  losing  visible  union  with  the  Church  of  Rome,"  says  the 
British  Critic,  "we  have  lost  great  privileges."  Dr.  Pusey  writes  to 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  :  "The  tendency  to  Romanism  is  at 
bottom  only  a  fruit  of  the  profound  desire  which  the  Church,  greatly 
moved,  experiences  to  become  again  that  which  the  Saviour  left 
her — One."  Says  Palmer,  in  his  Aids  to  Reflection  :  "I  should  like 
to  see  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  and  our  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury go  barefoot  to  Rome,  throw  their  arms  around  the  Pope,  kiss 
him,  [don't  forget  the  toe  !]  and  not  let  him  go,  till  they  had  per- 
suaded him  to  be  more  reasonable" —  and  cease  to  proclaim  them 
"heretics,"  we  suppose.  Rev.  D.  Atchison,  Episcopal  minister  at 
Glasgow,  Scotland,  in  a  pamphlet  he  has  published,  asks:  "When 
will  men's  minds  be  awake  to  the  Reformation  delusion  ?  Alas  !  we 
know  not  how  many  a  wretched  soul,  now  drinking  the  cup  of  eternal 
death,  owes  his  agonies  and  torments  to  that  Reformation  !"  On 
"the  necessity  of  reunion  with  Rome,"  Mr.  Newman  says  :  "We 
cannot  hope  for  the  recovery  of  Dissenting  bodies,  while  we  are 
ourselves  alienated  from  the  gi-eat  body  of  Christendom.  We  can- 
not hope  for  unity  of  faith,  if  we,  of  our  own  private  will,  make 
a  faith  for  ourselves  in  this,  our  small  corner  of  the  earth.  We 
cannot  hope  for  the  success  among  the  heathen  of  St.  Boniface  or 
St.  Augustine,  unless  like  them  we  go  forth  with  the  Apostolical 
benediction,  i.  e.,  the  Pope's  blessing." 

•  By  "  Catholic,"  they  dj  not  mean  the  Rutnish  Churjh,  but  the  established  Church 
oi  England. 


224  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

3.  Notice  what  Romanists  think  of  the  tendencies  of  the  "New- 
mania."  The  Roman  Catholic  Prelate  Dr.  Wiseman  writes  to  Lord 
Shrewsbury:  "We  can  count  certainly  on  a  prompt,  zealous,  and 
able  co-operation  to  bring  the  Church  of  England  to  obedience  to  the 
See  of  Rome.  When  I  read  in  their  chronological  order  the  writ- 
ings of  the  theologians  of  Oxford,  I  see  in  the  clearesl  manner  these 
Doctors  approximating  from  day  to  day  our  holy  Church,  both  as  tp, 
doctrine  and  good  will.     Our  Saints,  our  Popes,  become  mote  and 

more  dear  to  them ;  our  rites,  our  ceremonies,  and  even  the  festivals 
of  our  saints,  and  our  days  of  fasting,  are  precious  in  their  eyes, 
more  precious,  alas,  than  in  the  eyes  of  many  of  our  own  people." 
Again  he  says  :  "Their  admiration  of  our  institutions  and  practices, 
and  their  regret  at  having  lost  them,  manifestly  spring  from  the  value 
which  they  set  upon  every  thing  Catholic." 

AVell  may  the  eloquent  Dr.  Alerle  D'Aubigne  say  :  "The  march 
of  Puseyism,  regularly  inclining  from  Tract  to  Tract,  towards  the 
pure  system  of  the  Papacy  demonstrates  clearly  enough  the  end  to 
which  it  tends.  It  is  nothing  else  than  the  Popish  system,  in  its  essen- 
tial features,  transferred  to  England.  It  is  not  necessary  that  the 
Thames  should  go  to  Rome  to  bear  the  tribute  of  its  waters  :  the 
Tiber  flows  in  Oxford." 

The  foregoing  extracts  prove  three  things  :  (1)  That  the  system  of 
these  Prelatists  subverts  vital  Christianity  ;  (2)  That  it  is  Pojiery 
without  "disguise ;"  (3)  That  intelligent  Roman  Catholics  exult  in 
its  progress,  as  tending,  in  their  judgment,  directly  to  Romanism. 

4.  Hoio  extensively  is  this  system  embraced  by  the  divines  of  the 
English  and  American  Episcopal  Churches  ?  This  inquiry  is  of  some 
importance  with  us.  We  already  know  what  Popery  is,  and  we  may 
be  made  to  feel  its  power  at  some  future  day.  Dr.  Pusey,  in  a  letter 
to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  says  :  "Two  systems  of  doctrine  are 
now  and  probably  for  the  last  time,  in  conflict — the  Catholic  and  the 
Genevan."  If  by  the  "Catholic"  system,  Dr.  Pusey  means  that 
which  now  seems  to  characteiise  the  English  establishment,  (as  he 
does,)  and  if  by  the  "Genevan"  he  means  that  which  was  supported 
by  the  Reformers  of  Geneva,  we  decidedly  prefer  the  latter ;  and 
if  Popery  and  Prelacy  are  soon  to  be  synonymous  on  both  sides  of 
the  Atlantic,  and  are  soon  to  come  to  open  "conflict"  with  their 
opponents,  we  feel  an  interest  to  inquire  how  far  the  "Newmania" 
has  already  spread,  that  we  may  buckle  on  our  armour  and  be  ready 
for  the  shock.     Our  inquiry   may  be    answered    by    Episcopal  testi- 


DEGENERACY  OF  MODERN    PRELACY.  225 

mony.  On  this  point  as  regards  the  English  Church,  Isaac  Taylor, 
an  eloquent  writer  and  member  of  that  Church,  remarks  in  his 
"Ancient  Christianity,"  June,  1840  :  "These  past  nine  years  have 
seen  the  venom  of  Oxford  Tract  doctrines  insidiously  shed  into  the 
bosoms  of  perhaps  a  iviajority  of  the  younger  clergy  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church.  At  the  end  of  such  another  period,  we  may  have  to 
look  hack  toward  the  light  kindled  by  the  Reformers  as  a  gl'wrner 
fading  in  the  remote  horizon,  and  forward — into  an  abyss  !  The 
toils    are  fast  gathering  round  the  English  Church." 

The  above  was  written  neax-ly  four  years  ago.  From  present 
appearances,  there  is  fearful  reason  to  apprehend  that  the  foreboding 
of  the  writer  will  be  more  than  realized  by  the  time  his  period  of 
"nine  years"  shall  have  rolled  away.  It  has  been  stated  upon  credible 
Episcopal  authority,  that  "three-fourths"  of  the  English  clergy  have 
either  embraced  or  are  strongly  inclined  to  the  system  of  "Tractari- 
anism."  Besides  this,  we  have  Episcopal  testimony  to  the  fact,  that 
quite  a  respectable  number,  (some  of  the  younger  clergy  of  the 
establishment,  and  candidates  for  orders,  &c.,)  have  openly  embraced 
Jlo?nan/sm.  These  are  among  the  "first  fruits"  of  the  avowed  object 
and  efforts  to  "unprotestantize"  the  English  Church.  On  this  latter 
point,  the  "Episcopal  Recorder,"  a  paper  published  in  Philadelphia, 
says  :  "By  our  late  arrival  of  intelligence  from  England,  we  leam 
that  the  New?7iania  leaven  is  still  working  out  its  natural  results  in 
Oxford.  It  is  stated  that  Mr.  Thomas  Harper  King,  and  Undero-ra- 
duate  of  Exeter  College,  has  joined  the  Church  of  Rome.  This  is 
the  second  member  of  Exeter  College,  who  has  turned  Romanist 
within  the  last  six  months,  and  the  seventeenth  victim  of  Mr.  New- 
man's efforts  to  unprotestantize  the  Church  of  England."  Another 
paper  states  upon  Episcopal  authority :  "By  letters  received  at 
Oxford,  from  among  the  Tractarians  in  Rome,  information  is  received 
that  Scott  Murray,  B.  A.,  of  Christ  Church,  has  just  conformed  in 
that  capital  to  the  Romish  faith.  This  conversion  is  stated  in  the 
University  to  be  the  eighteenth  from  among  INIr.  Newman's  disciples, 
which  has  taken  place  since  1841.  Other  conversions  are  also 
rumored."  A  late  English  paper  has  more  recent  information  still, 
and  speaks  as  follows  :  "Puseyism  continues  to  make  rapid  strides. 
It  is  overrunning  the  country  at  an  alarming  pace.  Cambridge  hitherto 
unsuspected,  is  now,  like  Oxford,  known  to  be  deeply  infected  with 
the  Tractarian  heresy.  The  Church  and  State  Gazette,  contains  an 
important  announcement  relative  to  an  unexpected  outbreak  of  Pusey- 


226  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

ism,  in  one  of  his  most  violent  forms,  in  the  very  heart  of  that  Uni- 
versity. On  Monday  evening,  says  the  paper  in  question,  'a  debate 
on  the  subject  of  monasteries  took  place  at  the  Union.  The  question 
proposed  was.  That  the  dissolution  of  monasteries  by  Henry  VIII,  has 
heen  highly  injurious  to  this  country ;  and  that  the  circumstances  of 
the  times  imperativeh/  demand  the  restoration  of  similar  institutions. 
The  numbers  were — For  the  motion,  88  ;  against  it,  60,  majority  28. 
The  question  was  argued  with  more  than  usual  ability  on  both  sides. 
The  great  interest  it  excited  in  the  University  may  be  gathered  from 
the  fact  of  the  discussion  extending  over  three  evenings,  on  the  last 
of  which,  there  was  a  larger  house  than  has  been  assembled  for  many 
months.'  " 

Notwithstanding  these  painful  and  humiliating  evidences  of  the 
rapid  strides  of  the  Church  of  England  toward  the  abominations  of 
Papal  Rome,  "known  and  read  of  all  men,"  the  "Bishop  of  Ten- 
nessee" can  coolly  ©peak  of  this  Church,  with  his  usual  accuracy,  as 
"the  uncompromizing  asserter  of  Catholic  verity,  the  acknowledged 
bulwark  of  Protestant  principles  !"*  The  reason  probably,  why 
some  persons  in  our  country  (we  have  heard  of  such)  cannot  see  any 
departure  from  "Protestant  principles"  in  the  present  condition  of  the 
English  Church,  is  that  they  strongly  sympathize  with  that  very  depar- 
ture ?     Is   this  the  case  with  the  "Bishop  of  Tennessee  1" 

That  the  "Newmania"  has  taken  strong  hold  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  this  country,  is  too  notorious  to  be  denied.  It  is  impossible 
to  tell  to  what  extent  the  system  is  favored  ;  but  from  what  has  been 
transpiring  for  a  year  or  two  past,  (with  which  the  great  mass  of  the 
people  are  familiar,)  it  is  evident  that  a  considerable  body  of  the 
clergy  look  with  a  very  lenient  eye  upon  its  characteristics  and  pro- 
gress ;  and  it  is  well  known  that  some  of  the  "Bishops  and  other 
clergy,"  heartily .  approve  of  it.  The  proof  of  this  is  seen  in  the 
fact,  that  the  whole  series  of  the  Oxfoi'd  Tracts,  embracing  the 
famous  "Number  Ninety,"  the  Sermons  of  Mr.  Newman,  the  works 
of  Mr.  Palmer,  and  other  publications  in  which  the  system  is  advo- 
cated, have  been  strongly  recommended  by  several  of  the  Prelates 
of  "the  Church,"  and  have  been  extensively  circulated.  The  Pre- 
lates of  New- York  and  New-Jerseyt   stand  in  the  front  rank  of  its 

•  Discourses,  p  30. 

t  Bishop  Doane,  of  Nev/-Jeisey,  thus  endorses  the  "  British  Critic,"  tho  chief  organ 
of  the  Tractarians :  "  It  has  been  among  my  xoarmcst  wishes,  that  a  publisher  might  be 
found  who  would  give  to  the  clergy  and  laity  of  our  Churches,  and  to  all  lovers  of  high 
intellect  imbued  w'whpriviliivs  piety, and  consecrated  at  the  altar  of  the  Holy  One,  aa 


5.1 


DEGENERACY    OF  MODERN    PRELACY.  227 

advocates.  The  conduct  of  the  former  in  ordaining  Mr.  Arthur  Ca- 
rey, after  he  had  formally  declared  his  approval  and  reception  of  the 
abhorrent  articles  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  (the  Creed  of  the  Ro- 
mish Church  ;)  the  subsequent  approval  of  the  course  of  Bishop 
Onderdonk  by  a  large  majority  of  the  clergy  of  his  Diocese, 
represented  in  Convention  ;  the  defense  of  the  Carey  ordination  in 
Episcopal  papers  and  periodicals  throughout  the  country  ;  especially 
the  defense  of  it  by  the  Professors  in  the  "General  Theological  Sem- 
inary" of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  city  of  New  York,  a  Seminary 
which  furnishes  many  of  the  clergy  of  "the  Church  ;"*  the  fact  that 
Bishop  Doane  of  New-Jersey,  and  Bishop  Ives  of  North  Carolina, 
were  present  at  the  ordination,  "aiding  and  abetting  ;"  besides  many 
other  important  facts  well  known  to  every  observer  of  passing  events ; 
all  sei've  to  show,  how  strongly  tinctured  are  the  divines  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  United  States,  with  that  "Newmania"  which 
has  brought  the  Church  of  England  to  the  very  doors   of  the  Vatican.t 

American  ediiion  of  this  ablest  ot  all  the  British  periodicals I  speak 

advisedly,  for  I  have  been  a  subscriber  to  it  from  the  commencement  of  the  present  se- 
ries, and  the  whole  set,  now  twenty-eight  volumes,  are  on  theshelvesof  my  library,  and 
among  its  choicest  contents.  It  should  be  in  the  hands  of  every  clergyman,  and  fchould 
circulate  in  every  parish." 

To  show  further  how  things  are  working  'n  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country,  take 
the  following  from  an  Episcopal  paper,  published  in  luly,  1842.  The  Episcopal  Recorder 
says:  "  We  know  not  how  it  is,  but  we  have  long  since  observed  that  when  hight 
churchmen  are  elected  to  the  Episcopate,  their  way  is  instantly  made  smooth  and  easy  to 
the  Episcopal  chair — but  generally,  when  any  of  our  Evangelical  brethren  are  called  to 
this  office,  a  great  many  obstacles  are  thrown  in  their  way — and  many  difficulties  raised 
to  delay  or  prevent  their  consecration.  We  do  not  say  that  there  is  any  thing  designed 
in  this,  but  we  think  it  wonderful  that  it  should  always  happen  so.'"  There  are  two  im- 
portant statements  here,  v/hich  merit  attention  1.  That  fligh-Chiirchmen  are  not  Evan- 
gelical, and  2.  That  Evangelical  piety  is  a  hindrance  to  one  who  desires  the  office  of  Bi- 
shop in  the  Episcopal  Church. 

*  A  student  of  this  Seminary,  of  the  name  of  Putnam,  was,  not  long  since,  converted 
to  Romanism.  Professor  Turner,  the  Dean  of  the  Faculty  of  the  Institution,  has  pub- 
lished a  history  of  this  conversion,  which  shows  that  Mr.  Putnam  imbibed  his  Popish 
views  while  in  this  Episcopal  Seminary.  Professor  Turner  says:  "  I  inquired  of  him 
if  the  Bishop's  impression  as  to  his  intention  of  joining  the  Church  of  Rome  was  correct, 
and  was  answered  in  the  afTirmative.  I  remarked  that  this  was  very  extraordinary,  in- 
asmuch, as  about  two  months  before,  he  had  applied  for  admission  into  the  Seminary,  and 
professed  '  attachment  to  the  doctrine,  discipline,  and  worship  of  the  Protestant  Episco 
pal  Church  ;'  to  which  he  replied,  that  he  v/as  so  at  that  time,  but  that  his  views  had 
undergone  a  change  since.'"  In  answer  to  an  inquiry  he  said  :  "  I  ascribe  my  conversion 
to  a  miraculous  [or  direct]  interposition  of  Heaven  in  my  favor.  He  stated,  also,  that 
he  owed  /as  conversioji,  under  God,  to  reading  the  Vtriii<h  Critic.'''' 
tin  remr-rking  upon  the  Carey  ordination.  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  of  Ohio,  (one  of  the 
aobie  few"  in  "  the  Church,"  who  abhor  Puseyism,)  holds  tho  following  language  : — 


228  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

We  have  thus  given  substantial  evidence,  from  the  mouths  of  our 
opponents,  of  the  lamentable  degeneracy  of  modern  Prelacy.  Beyond 
all  possibility  of  doubt  or  denial,  the  Episcopal  Churches  of  England 
and  the  United  States  are  fast  verging  toward  Popery.  Their  friends 
ACKNOWLEDGE  IT  :  some  of  them  mourn  over  it.  We  are  naturally  led 
to  inquire — 

IV.  Into  the  present  tendencies  of  the  Prelatical  system :  that  is 
to  say,  What  will   he  its  bearing  and  infiucnce,  from  its  present  as- 


"  There  are  two  aspects  of  that  ordination,  in  which  the  several  dioceses  ere  deeply  in- 
terested. One  is,  its  connection  with  the  character  of  our  General  Tlieological  Semina- 
ry in  the  city  of  New  York.  The  Bishop  who  ordained  is  not  only  President  of  the 
Faculty  of  that  Semitiary,  but  Professor  also  of  the  Nature,  Ministry,  and  Polity  of  the 
Churc.*!.'  One  of  the  clergy  who  assisted  in  the  examination  of  Mr.  Carey,  and  advised 
his  being  ordained,  is  Pi  olcisor  in  the  same  of  Pastoral  Theology.  The  Church  may  well 
ask  whnt  sort  of  doctrine,  and  what  sympattiy  witli  Romanism  may  not  be  encouraged 
in  that  institution,  if  the  present  aspect  of  that  ordination  be  correct." — Address  to  Epis- 
Coiivenlion,  Ohio,  1843.  In  a  more  recent  letter  to  lii;hop  Onderdonk,  on  the  same  sub- 
ject, Fiishop  Mcllvaine  says  :  "  The  main  point  is  this — You  ordained  a  person  who  said 
he  did  not  deny  the  doctrines  of  the  Council  of  Trent;  who  said  he  received  the  articles  of 
the  Creed  of  Yius  IV.  so  far  as  they  are  repetitions  of  the  decrees  of  Trent,  (and  they  af- 
firm all  thedecreesof  Trent;)  who  said  it  \sdouhtful  whether  the  Church  of  England,  in 
separating  from  that  of  Rome,  embraced  more  pure  and  scriptural  views  of  doctrine;  who 
did  not  consider  the diflferences  between  our  Church  and  thut  of  Rome  to  embrace  points 
of  faith''''  Again,  same  letter :  "  So  far  as  that  ordination  is  to  be  considered  as  an  ex- 
pression of  what  you  sir,  are  willing  to  sanction,  in  the  ministers  of  our  Church,  it  has 
alwiiysassumed  the  more  importance  in  my  view,  from  the  recollection  that,  even  after 
the  appearance  of  the  famous  Ninetieth  Tract,  you  recommended  to  your  Zonveniion  and 
endorsed,  officially  and  publicly,  the  whole  series  of  Tracts  for  the  Times,  withont  a7iy  re- 
servationor  exception.  Now  you  are  aware  that  the  express  object  of  tlie  ninetieth  Tract 
is  to  maintaiti  the  en  tire  consistency  of  a  person's  being  a  minister  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  England,  [and  therefore  of  the  United  States,]  and  yet  holding  all  the 
doctrines  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  or  of  the  creed  of  Pius  IV.  Your  official  and  public 
endorsement  of  that  Tract  is  sufficient  evidence  that,  whether  Mr.  Carey  did,  or  did  not, 
use  the  precise  expressions  attributed  to  him,  you  were  prepared  to  justify  the  ordination 
of  one  who  should  use  them ;  and  that  your  being  so  prepared  was  not  incidental,  a  mere 
matter  of  mistake  arising  out  of  the  newness  ofacase  of  which  you  had  no  precedent,  but 
a  matter  of  settled  determination  and  principle,  arising  out  of  your  having  approved  the 
system  of  the  Tracts  of  the  Times,  of  which  the  ninetieth  Tract  is  simply  a  natural  re- 
sult, and  the  admissibility  of  a  person  holding  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Carey  to  the  orders  of 
our  Church  is  but  a  necessary  consequence-  In  this  view  of  the  matter,  I  see  no  reason 
lo  suppose  that,  under  similar  circumstances,  you  would  not  do  precisely  as  you  have 
done.  If  you  approve  the  doctrine  of  the  Tracts,  especially  of  the  ninetieth,  [and  you 
have  published  such  approbation,]  you  could  not  avoid  it."  Bishop  Mcllvaine  also  says 
in  the  same  letter,  that  a  solemn  condemnation  of  this  ordination  by  the  "  General  Con- 
venti  jn  "  of  the  Episcopal  Church  is  necessary,  in  order  to  vindicate  her  Protestant  char- 
acter. This  is  true.  We  shall  see  whether  the  Protestant  spirit  sufficiently  prevails. 
We  predict  that  no  such  condemnation  will  be  hurled  at  Bishop  Onderdonk  by  the  next 
"  General  Convention,"  but  time  will  tell. 


liMOLERANCE  OF  PRELACY.  229 

pect,  upon  iJie  other   Christian   Clmrchex,  ami  tlto   ChriMiav  world  at 
large? 

To  attempt  to  answer  this  question,  may  be  deemed  an  assumption 
of  the  prerogatives  of  a  Prophet,  We  do  not,  however,  pretend  to 
any  uncommon  knowledge  of  the  future.  We  only  wish  to  deduce, 
as  every  man  should,  practical  lessons  from  the  "  signs  of  the  times." 
We  are  no  alarmists  ;  but  in  our  humble  judgment  the  signs  are  omin- 
ious  of  evil.  We  know  that  "  the  Lord  reigns,"  and  "  will  do  all 
his  pleasure  in  the  earth ;"  and  we  know  that  "  that  the  wrath  of  man 
shall  praise  him,  and  the  remainder  he  will  restrain."  We  know,  fur- 
ther, that  while  all  things  shall  contribute  to  God's  glory,  "  all  things 
work  together  for  good  to  them  that  love  God  ;"  and  hence,  no  true 
Christian  has  any  thing  to  fear,  personally,  whatever  may  be  the  as- 
pect of  affairs  in  the  Church  or  the  world.  But  while  all  this  is  true, 
it  is  also  true,  that  every  friend  of  God  and  man  is  under  a  high  obli- 
gation to  take  a  decided  stand  in  defence  of  vital  Christianity,  and  a 
stand  of  uncompromising  opposition  to  every  system  of  fatal  error- 
Such  we  conceive  to  be  the  system  now  generally  and  increasingly 
prevalent  in  the  prelatical  Churches  of  England  and  the  United 
States.     The  present  inquiry  is  therefore  a  practical  one. 

If  we  may  not  be  warranted  in  predicting,  at  some  day  not  distant, 
a  general  and  "visible  union  with  Rome,"  on  the  part  of  these  Chur- 
ches, (for  which  the  Tractists  pray,  and  of  which  there  is  real  appre- 
hension,) we  may  yet,  from  present  appearances,  count  on  a  very  gen- 
eral adoption  of  Popish  tenets,  principles,  and  practices,  not  except- 
ing its  exclusive,  intolerant,  and  persecuting  opposition  to  all  other 
Christian  denominations.  We  unhesitatingly  say  persecuting  opposi- 
tion, and  we  mean  it  in  the  most  literal  sense  of  the  term.  The  use 
of  coercive  means  to  bring  men  to  their  views,  has,  at  different  periods 
in  past  ages,  characterized  almost  all  Christian  Churches,  to  their  dis- 
grace. And  that  spirit  should  have  been  permitted  to  sleep  with  the 
ages  that  axe  past.  But  unfortunately,  the  right  to  use  coercion  is 
maintained  in  the  nineteenth  century,  by  the  "  Newmaniacs,"  and 
those  to  whom  they  look  up  ! 

We  cannot  go  extensively  into  the  proof  of  this,  but  shall  give  the 
reader  a  case  or  two.  Dr.  Hickes,  a  distinguished  divine  of  the  Church 
of  England,  denominated  Bishop  and  Confessor,  by  the  Tractarians, 
speaks  thus  on  the  "  Dignity  of  the  Episcopal  Order  :"  *'  Bishops  are 
appointed  to  succeed  the  Apostles,  and  like  them  to  stand  in  Christ'f 
place,    and    exercise  his  kingly,  priestly,  and   prophetical  office  over 

E* 


230  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

their  flocks  ;  can  you,  when  you  consider  this,  think  it  novel,  or  im- 
proper, or  uncouth,  to  call  them  spiritual  princes,  and  their  dioceses  p?'m- 
cipalities,  when  they  have  every  thing  in  their  office  which  cart,  denom- 
inate a  prince?  For  what  is  a  prince,  but  a  chief  ruler  of  a  society, 
that  liath  authority  over  the  rest,  to  make  laws  for  it,  to  challenge  the 
obedience  of  all  the  members,  and  all  ranks  of  men  in  it,  and  power  to 
COERCE  them,  if  they  will  not  obey]  ******  And  the 
successors  of  the  Apostles,  the  Bishops,  like  spiritual  princes,  exercise 
tJie  same  coercive  authority  that  they  did  in  inflicting  spiritual  cen- 
sures upon  their  disobedient  subjects" 

The  British  Critic,  one  of  the  most  prominent  organs  of  the  "New- 
maniacs,"  says  :  "  It  has  been  argued  by  very  high  authority,  that  the 
arbitrary  strictness  of  military  discipline,  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
constitution  of  a  free  state,  because  enlistment  is  purely  voluntary. 
This  argument  applies  with  greater  force  to  the  Churchman,  whose 
canonical  yoke  is  freedom  itself,  when  compared  with  the  bondage  of 
the  soldier,  and  who  engages  in  his  profession  at  a  more  mature  age, 
and  with  .greater  deliberation."  In  speaking  of  this  sentiment  set 
forth  in  the  Critic,  Archdeacon  Townsend  says  :  "  Who  does  not  la- 
ment to  read  in  the  pages  of  the  learned  author  of  the  history  of  the 
Arians,  (Mr,  Newman,)  the  defence  of  some  of  the  worst  principles  on. 
rohich  the  Church  of  Rome  established  all  its  usurpations?  Who  would 
believe,  that  in  the  present  day,  when  the  doctrine  of  toleration  might 
have  been  supposed  to  have  become  an  axiom  with  governments  and 
individuals,  that  this  learned  and  laborious  member  of  the  University  of 
Oxford,  when  he  is  relating,  in  very  just  language,  the  evil  consequen- 
ces of  the  conduct  of  the  heretics,  who  opposed  in  the  fourth  century, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  declares,  that  it  is  '  but  equita- 
ble to  anticipate  those  consequences  in  the  persons  of  the  heresiarchs, 
rather  than  to  suffer  them  gradually  to  unfold,  and  spread  far  and  wide 
after  their  day,  sapping  the  faith  of  their  deluded  and  less  guilty  fol- 
lowers.' That  is,"  continues  Townsend,  "  it  is  better  to  inflict  punish- 
ment upon  the  persons  of  the  heresiarchs,  than  to  wait  to  confute  their  opin- 
ions, because  those  opinions  are  injurious!"  Mr.  Townsend  then  asks : 
"  Coidd  the  Church  of  Rome  require  any  other  defence  of  its  persecu- 
tions?" Mr.  Newman  further  says  :  "  The  heresiarch  should  meet 
WITH  NO  MERCY.  He  assumes  the  office  of  the  tempter,  and  so  far  aa 
his  error  goes  must  be  dealt  with  by  the  competent  authority,  as  if  he 
were  embodied  evil.  To  spare  him  is  a  false  and  dangerous  pity. 
It  is  to  endanger  the  souls  of  thousands,  and  it  is  uncharitable  to  hin^- 


INTOLERANCE  OF  PRELACY.  231 

self."  Upon  this  Mr.  Townsend  remarks :  "  Could  the  spirit  of  St. 
Dominic  animate  the  Inquisition  with  more  intolerable  language?  Is 
it  to  be  endured  in  the  present  day  among  a  people  who  rightly  and 
justly  seek  for  liberty  as  well  as  truth?" 

When  reading  such  bold  defences  of  coercion,  from  divines  of  the 
Church  of  England,  one  can  hardly  believe  he  is  living  in  the  middle 
of  a  century  which  boasts  so  much  light  and  liberty  as  the  nineteenth. 
He  fancies  that  he  is  either  dreaming,  or  that  he  is  translated  back 
two  hundred  years  in  the  world's  history  ! 

But  this  spirit  is  not  wholly  confined  to  the  other  side  of  the  At- 
lantic. The  late  Bishop  Hobart,  of  New  York,  in  his  "  Apology  for 
Apostolic  Order  and  its  advocates,"  remarks  :  "Episcopalians,  I  trust, 
will  all  soon  be  ashamed  of  that  timid  and  false  liherality  which,  by 
concealing  the  distinctive  principles  of  their  Church,  is  levelling  the 
barriers  with  which  the  sacred  wisdom  of  ages  has  fenced  her  round." 
Again,  he  observes  :  "  In  maintaining  certain  principles  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church,  tlicre  can  he,  there,  ov§lit  to  he,  no  compromise  with  the  er- 
rors that  are  opposed  to  these prtncipiles."* 

Bishop  McCoskry,  the  present  Prelate  of  Michigan,  in  a  letter  to 
the  editor  of  the  Banner  of  the  Cross,  writes  :  "  The  time  is  ccme 
Avhen  every  true  son  of  the  Church  must  stand  faithfully  and  fearless- 
ly at  his  post.  Dissent  in  every  form  must  he  met,  and  put  down." — 
True,  he  does  not  inform  us  by  what  means  ;  but  we  are  left  to  infer, 
perhaps,  that  the  mode  will  be  similar  to  the  way  in  which  some  other 
things  are  done  under  the  sun — "  peaceably,  if  we  can;  forcibly,  if  we 

MUST." 

And  even  the  mild  and  amiable  "Bishop  of  Tennessee  "  has  some- 
thing which  seems  to  bear  strongly  upon  the  matter  in  hand.  Speak- 
ing of  the  different  sects  of  religion,  he  boldly  says  :  "  Party  spirit 
MUST  BE  RESTRAINED.  Without  the  introduction  of  some  restraining 
principle  to  counteract  this  general  disposition  among  men  of  the  pre- 
sent day  to  separate  into  parties,  it  must  be  too  evident  to  need  proof, 

*  On  the  subject  of  the  ministry  Bishop  Ilobart  says  in  the  same  work  :  "  1  could  not 
maintain  the  Divine  authority  ot  the  Episcopal  ministry,  without  denying  the  validity 
of  a  non-Episcopal  ministry;  for  it  is  an  essential  prmciple,  in  the  Episcopal  ministry, 
that  Bishops,  as  an  order  superior  to  Presbyters,  have  alone  the  power  of  ordination.— 
Of  course  a  ministry  not  Episcopally  ordained,  canvM  he  a  valid  ininistry."  And  yet 
again  he  says:  "  Bishops  o.dy  possess  the  power  of  ordination.  Of  course  it  necessarily 
results,  that  none  can  be  esteemed  '  lawful  ministers'  who  have  not  liad  Episcopal  con- 
seoration  or  ordination  (Communing  with  ministers  not  thus  duly  authorized  is,  C/ur.fore 
on  Episcopal  principles,  to  commit  the  sin  of  schism.''^ 


232  PRELACY    EXAMINED. 

that  every  thing  like  unity  among  Christians  will  be  at  an  end.  The 
only  bond  to  draw  men  together  in  ecclesiastical  associations  will  then 
be  inclination  and  interest  or  accidental  circumstances  growing  out  of 
the  intercourse  of  social  life.  And  when  these  cease  to  operate  or 
to  have  influence,  new  divisions  must  ensue  from  a  change  of  circum- 
stances or  of  relations  in  an  ever  varying  and  changing  world,  until 
every  distinctive  feature  of  the  christian  system  and  of  the  Church, 
one  after  another,  shall  pass  away  and  the  whole  be  divested  of  that 
Divine  authority  which  alone  can  and  ought  to  give  it  sanction  and 
weight  with  men.  Indeed  if  these  separations  into  distinct  bodies  or  com- 
munities BE  ALLOWABLE,  there  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  why  every 
man  should  not  act  for  himself  and  family  in  the  affairs  of  religion, 
without  the  intervention  or  aid  of  any  ministry  whatever."* 

We  leave  the  reader  to  draw  his  own  conclusions  respecting  the 
foregoing  extracts.  That  they  have  a  meaning,  there  can  be  no  doubt: 
that  it  is  a  meaning  pregnant  with  evil,  there  can  be  as  little  doubt. 
We  are  apt  to  think  so  well  of  our  own  age,  that  we  can  scarcely  be- 
lieve it  possible  that  any  christian  Church,  should  now  countenance 
persecution,  by  fire  and  sword.  This  is  an  era  of  light,  liberty,  tol- 
eration, religion  and  law!  This  is,  the  ^'' glorious  nineteenth  century V 
Persecution  occur  at  this  day !  Who  can  believe  it?  Aye,  and  who 
would  have  believed,  a  few  years  ago,  that  the  Church  of  England 
would  now  be  ready  to  shake  hands  with  the  Church  of  Rome?  Who 
would  have  believed  that  she  would  tolerate  in  her  bosom,  as  ministers 
in  good  standing,  those  (and  such  numbers  too,)  who  publicly  and 
fearlessly  advocate  all  the  abominations  of  Popery,  from  the  idola- 
trous adoration  of  the  "  Mother  of  God,  "  to  tran substantiation,  pur- 
gatory, and  prayers  and  sacraments  for  the  dead  and  dying  ;  and  who 
openly  repudiate  "justification  by  faith,"  as  making  '■'■no  part  of  the 
doctrine  necessary  to  salvation?"  Who  would  have  believed  it?  And 
who  could  have  been  persuaded  that  the  American  Episcopal  Church 
would  so  closely  follow  in  the  wake  of  the  English?  But  facts  are  stub- 
born things.  We  are  now  compelled  to  believe  all  this,  or  deny  that 
the  sun  shines  at  midday.  And  we  ask,  can  it  noio  be  deemed  any 
Tnore  incredible,  that  the  advocates  of  modern  Prelacy  should  openly 
adopt  xhe  persecuting  principles  and  spirit  of  the  "  infallible  "  Papacy? 
Do  they  not  avow  the  right"?  Do  they  not  declare  the  duty!  What, 
then,  shall  prevent  their  discharging  the  duty  by  putting  the  right  into 
practical  exercise,  just  so  soon  as  they  shall  become  possessed   of  the 

*  Discourses,  pp.  8,y. 


INTOLERANCE  OF  PRELACY.  233 

requisite  power]*  Even  now,  the  intolerant  opposition  to  all  other 
christian  Churches  (see  chap.  I.)  summons  to  its  aid  every  harsh  epi- 
thet of  which  human  language  is  capable  ;  and  the  ministry  of  other 
Churches  is  declared  to  be  wholly  unauthorized,  t  Whenever  the  real 
principles  and  spirit  of  modern  Prelacy  shall  become  predominant, 
even  in  our  own  land  of  liberty  and.  equal  rights,  (and  by  a  "  visible 
union  with  Rome,"  for  the  want  of  which  the  "  Newmaniacs  "  lament, 

*  We  are  not  sure  but  some  would  be  tempted  to  seek  the  requisite  power  to  enforce 
the  system  from  the  civil  authority,  if  they  thought  they  could  succeed.  During  the 
late  visit  to  England  of  that  "  Rt.  Rev.  Father  in  God,"  Bishop  Doane,  of  New  Jersey, 
he  informs  the  public  in  the  account  of  his  tour,  that  he  attended  "  the  Annual  Dinner 
of  the  Church  Sunday  School  Teachers,"  of  London.  At  this  dinner  the  following 
toast  was  given  :  "  The  Right  Rev-  Dr.  Doane,  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  and  the  Church 
in  America."  The  announcement  was  followed  by  "  three  times  three."  In  a  speech 
replying  to  this  toast,  Bishop  Doane  says  :  [see  his  pamphlet,  p.  64,]  "  The  Church  in 
America  stands  unsupported,  unconnected  with  the  state.  I  need  not  draw  any  com- 
parison. I  hold  it  to  be  your  great  privilege  that  your  Church  and  Slate  are  connected^  and 
INSEPARABLY  CONNECTED,  as  I  believe  and  hope,  in  God's  name  forever."  'I'his  was  re- 
ceived wiih  "  cheers."  Such  a  sentiment,  uttered  on  English  soil,  is  enough  to  disgrace 
any  American  citizen,  and  should  bring  double  dishonor  upon  the  Prelate  of  New  Jersey, 
who  bears  the  revered  name  of  Geokge  Washington!  We  suppose  it  was  in  compli- 
ment to  this  speech,  or  to  Bishop  Doane's  sermon  at  the  consecration  of  Dr.  Ilook'a 
Fuseyite  chapel  in  Leeds,  England,  that  the  latter  afterwards  dedicated  a  published  ser- 
mon to  "  the  Right  Rev.  George  Washington  Doane,  D-  D.,  Lord  Biohop  of  New  Jer- 
sey !"  This  \santicipati7ig  a  iittle,  to  be  sure  ;  but  when  the  secret  wishes  which  Bi- 
shop Doane's  speech  plainly  evinces  shall  have  been  realized,  then  we  may  have  '■' Lords 
Bishops"  as  plenty  as  they  are  in  England. 

t  In  addition  to  the  abundant  proof  on  this  point  already  given,  take  the  following 
from  the  "  Primary  Charge"  of  Bishop  Onderdonk,  of  New  York,  "  to  the  clergy  and 
laity  of  his  Diocese,"  October,  1831  :  "  h\  naming  the  Episcopal  constitution  of  the  min- 
istry, I  would  merely  refer  to  that  view  of  it,  which,  as  exhibited  by  our  standards,  we 
are  bound  to  receive  asa  part  of  that  doctrine  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  con- 
formity to  which  was  solemnly  promised  at  our  ordination.  That  view  is  comprised  in 
the  following  brief  summary  :  That  no  man  can  lawfully  preach  the  word,  and  admin- 
ister the  sacraments,  without  being  duly  sent ;  and  that  none  are  duly  sent,  and  conse- 
quently are  lawful  ministers,  except  they  have  had  Episcopal  ordination,  i.  e.,  ordina- 
tion by  the  first  of  the  three  O'-ders  of  ministers,  which,  God  himself  established  in  his 
Church."  lie  then  proceeds  to  show  that  thislansuage,  not  only  prohibits  the  ministry 
in  their  Church  of  non-Episcopal  ministers  of  the  gospel,  but  "can  hardly  be  fairly  re- 
garded othervv  se  than  as  definitely  settling  the  point  that  the  (Ihurch  admits  no  other  order 
than  Episcopal  to  be  valid.  For  example  :  a  person  applies  to  be  enabled  to  e.vercise  the 
ministry  in  our  communion-  He  may  have  been  for  years  an  able  and  successful  preach- 
er, and  a  pious  and  faithful  pastor,  with  many  seals  to  the  efliciency  of  his  holy  labors  ; 
but  with  other  than  Episcopal  orders.  Is  any  value  set  upon  his  orders  by  our  Church? 
Does  she  draw  the  least  distinction  between  him  and  a  lay  applicant  for  ordinationi  In 
other  words,  does  she  give  the  least  ground,  either  direct  or  indirect,  for  supposing  her 
to  act  in  the  matter  on  any  other  principle  than  the  7ion~allowance  of  the  validity  of  those 
orders?  Not  the  least.  Any jnevious  ordination  which  he  might  have  had  is  utterly 
null  and  void.'''' 


234  PRELACY   EXAMINED. 

or  without  such  open  union,  her  predominance  may  soon  be  asserted,) 
then,  rest  assured,  no  prophet's  ken  will  be  needed  to  foretell  the 
renewal  of  the  scenes  of  Smithfield  and  Tyburn.  We  would  by  no 
means  excite  unnecessary  alann  ;  but  we  would  advise  all  who  esteem 
it  a  privilege  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  con- 
sciences  TO   WATCH    CLOSELY   THE   DEVELOPMENTS    OP    MODERN   PrE- 


CONCLUSION. 

We  have  now  concluded  our  strictures  upon  Bishop  Otey's  pamph- 
let. A  word  is  due  at  parting.  We  entered  upon  this  work  at  the 
request  of  others,  as  the  letters  of  correspondence  show.  We  have 
discharged  the  duty  in  that  manner  which  accords  with  our  sense  of 
what  the  subject  and  the  character  of  the  work  reviewed  seemed  to 
demand.  Our  animadversions  upon  the  pamphlet  and  its  author  have 
at  times  been  tempered  with  severity,  but  they  have  always  been 
prompted  by  justice  and  founded  in  truth.  With  Bishop  Otey  per- 
sonally we  have  no  acquaintance  :  toward  him  we  feel  no  hostility. 
Against  his  exclusive  and  unchurching  sentiments,  we  shall  ever  feel 
bound  to  record  our  solemn  and  uncompromising  protest.  We  be- 
lieve they  have  no  warrant  in  Scripture,  and  find  no  countenance  in 
Heaven. 

Though  conscientiously  attached  to  the  Presbyterian  as  in  our  judg- 
ment the  scriptural  system,  we  do  not  regard  the  Word  of  God  as 
teachino'  any  form  of  polity  to  be  binding  in  such  a  sense,  as  necessa- 
rily to  deny  to  all  who  depart  from  it,  the  name  and  privileges  of  the 
Church  of  Christ.  What  is  Church  government  in  its  best  estate? 
Compared  with  faith,  repentance,  holiness,  is  it  any  thing  more  than 
the  shell  to  the  kernel,  the  scaffolding  to  the  building"?  For  what  was 
a  Church  established  on  the  earth,  as  a  visible  organization]  Was  it 
for  any  other  purpose  than  to  prepare  sinful  men  for  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  by  restoring  to  their  souls  God's  holy  image?  by  developing  those 
principles  of  heart  and  conduct  which  characterize  the  angels  and  the 
spirits  of  the  just  made  perfect?  How  much  does  the  enforcement  of 
any  particular  form  of  Church  government  contribute  to  this  object?- 
The  grand  ends  for  which  a  Church  was  established  may  be  attained 
under  any  of  the  various  forms  of  polity  which  have  been  adopted  by 
the  several  evangelical  Churches.     How  worse  than  idle  is  it  then  to 


CONCLUSION.  235 

make  so  much  of  form  and  order,  to  tlie  comparative  and  necessary 
disparagement  of  a  heartfelt  piety  !     "While  holiness  op  heart  and 

LIFE,  IN  THE  REDEEMED  OF  THE  LoRD,  SHALL  FOREVER  LIVE  AND  BLOOM 
BESIDE  THE  ETERNAL  THRONE,  ALL  THE  SYSTEMS  OF  ChURCH  POLITY 
WHICH  HAVE  EVER  EXISTED  WILL  BE  LEFT  TO  MOULDER  AND  ROT  A3IID 
THE  RUBBISH  OP  THIS  VAIN  AND  FLEETING  WORLD  ! 


A  r  P  E  N  D  T  X  . 


(A.— Page  30.) 
JVhen  was  the  "  Apostles'  Creed  "  composed? — Bishop  Otey  says :  "  The  precise  pe- 
riod of  time  at  which  this  creed,  venerable  for  its  antiquity,  was  composed,  is  not 
known  with  certainty.  No  doubt  it  was  very  near  to  the  Apostles'  times,  though  we 
cannot  assert  tliat  it  belongs  to  the  very  age  in  which  they  lived  and  preached."*  It 
will  be  seen  from  the  following  authorities  that  the  creed  as  it  now  stands  in  the  Eng- 
lisli  and  American  Episcopal  Prayer  Books,  was  not  only  not  composed  by  the  Apos- 
tles, nor  in  their  age,  nor  "very  near  to  the  Apostles'  times,"  but  that  some  parts  of 
it  have  been  added  since  the  heginningof  the  seventh  century. 
"THE  APOSTLES'  CREED, 


As  it  stood  An.  Dom,  600.     Copied  from 
Mr.  Justice  Bailey's  Edition  of  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer. 
"  Before  the  year  600,  it  was  no  more  than 
this." — Mr.  Justice  Bailey,  p.  9.  n. 
1.  I  believe  in  God  the  Father  Ahnighty  : 


2.  And   in  Jfsiis  Christ  his   only  begotten  Son, 
our  Lord ; 

3.  Who  was  born  of  tlie  Holy  Ghost  and  Virgin 
Mary, 

4.  And  was  crucified  under  Pontiua  Pilate,  and 
was  buried; 


6.  And  the  third  day   rose  again  from  the  dead, 

7.  Ascended   into   heaven,  sitteth   on   the  right 
hand  of  the  Father  ; 

8.  Whence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick  and 
the  dead ; 

9.  And  in  the  Holy  Ghost ; 

10.  The  Holy  Church; 

11.  The  remission  of  sins  ; 
12    And  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  Amen. 


As  it  now  stands  in  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer  of  the  United  Church  of 
England  and  Ireland,  as  by  law  estab- 
lished, and  in  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States. 

1 .  I  believe  in  God  the  Fatiier  Almighty,  maker 
of  heaven  and  earth: 

2.  And  in  Jesus  Christ,  his  only  Son,  our  Lord  ; 


3.  Who  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born 
of  the  Virgin  Mary, 

4.  Suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate,  was  crucified, 
dead,  and  buried  ; 

.').  He  descended  into  hell ; 

6.  Tlie  third  day  he  rose  again  from  the  dead  : 

7.  He  ascended  into  Heaven,   and  sitteth  on  tho 
right  hand  of  God  the  Father  Almighty  ; 

8.  From  thence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick 
and  the  dead. 

9.  H  I  believe  in  tho  Holy  Ghost; 

10.  The  holy  Catholic  Church  ;  the  communion 
of  saints; 

11.  The  forgiveness  of  sins; 
V2.  The  resurrection   of  the  body  ;  and   the  life 

everlasting,  Amen." 

Archbishop  Wake,  whose  competency  to  judge  will  not  be  questioned,  says :  "With 
respect  to  the  Apostles  being  the  authors  of  this  creed,  it  is  not  my  intention  to  en- 
ter on  any  particular  examination  of  this  matter,  which  has  been  so  fully  handled, 
not  only  by  the  late  critics  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  Natalis  Alexander,  Du  Pin,  «fcc., 

*  Discourses,  p.  11. 


11  APPENDIX. 

but  yet  more  especially  by  Archbishop  Usher,  Gerard  Vossius,  Suicer,  Spanhemius, 
Tentzelius,  and^Sam.  Basnage,  among  the  Protestants.  It  shall  suffice  to  say,  that  as 
it  is  not  likely,  that  had  any  such  thing  as  this  been  done  by  the  Apostles,  St.  Luke 
would  have  passed  it  by,  without  taking  the  least  notice  of  it;  so  the  diversity  of 
creeds  injthe  ancient  Church,  and  that  not  only  in  expression,  but  in  some  whole  ar- 
ticles too,  sufficiently  shows,  that  the  Creed  which  we  call  by  that  name,  was  not 
composed  by  the  twelve  Apostles,  much  less  in  the  same  form  in  which  it  now  is." 
Mr.  Justice  Bailey  says :  "It  is  not  to  be  misunderstood  that  this  creed  was  formed 
by  the  Apostles,  or  indeed  that  it  existed  as  a  creed  in  their  time;"  and  after  giving 
the  creed  as  it  existed  in  the  year  600,  and  which  is  here  copied  from  his  Common 
Prayer  Book,  he  says :  "  How  long  this  form  had  existed  before  the  year  600,  is  not 
exactly  known.  The  additions  were  probably  made  in  opposition  to  particular  here- 
sies and  errors." 

Of  what  use  is  this  Apostles^  Creed? — Bishop  Otey  shall  answ^er:  "  But  one  of  the 
chief  and  among  the  most  excellent  purposes  which  the  creed  answers,  especially  by 
its  introduction  into  the  worship  of  the  congregation  is  the  preservation  of  unity  among 
the  memlers  of  the  body.  It  is  thus  that  we  are  all  enabled  to  '  speak  the  same  thing,' 
and  '  be  perfectly  joined  together,'  as  the  Apostle  enjoins,  'in  the  same  mind  and  the 
same  judgment.'  It  is  thus  we  confess  Christ '  before  men,'  profess  '  the  faith  once 
delivered  to  the  saints,'  and  preclude  all  just  occasion  for  divisions."*  How  forcibly 
are  these  "  excellent  purposes  which  the  creed  answers,'"  exemplified  in  the  actual 
condition  of  the  Episcopal  Church  at  this  moment  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic ! — 
How  powerfully  it  operates  in  "the  preservation  of  wmiiJ/.'"  How  happily  the  divines 
of  that  favored  Church  are  in  consequence  of  it  "enabled  to  speak  the  same  thing !^' 
Header  !  if  you  do  not  perceive  all  this,  you  are  far  behind  the  age !  Just  look  across 
the  "  great  water,"  andyou  will  see  the  "unity"  here  boasted  of!  You  will  find  a 
goodly  number  of  English  divines  teaching  nearly  all  the  abominable  tenets  of  the 
Romish  Church,  from  adoration  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  down  to  transubstantiation,  pur- 
gatorial purification,  prayers  for  the  dead,  «fec.,  &c.,  Avhile  on  the  otherhand  you  will 
find  some  of  the  divines  of  this  same  united  Church,  denouncing  these  men  as  recre- 
ant to  their  ordination  vows,  as  running  rough  shod  over  the  "  Thirty-nine,"  as  "semi- 
Papists,"  and  as  Papists  outright.  But  you  need  not  go  to  England  to  find  this  pecul- 
iar "  unity."  You  will  find  that  the  works  in  which  are  taught  these  Popish  abomi- 
nations have  been  republished  and  w^idely  circulated  in  this  countiy,  by  the  special 
recommendation  of  some  of  the  "  Bishops  and  other  clergy,  "  while  other  Prelates 
liave  denounced  them  without  qualification,  and  warned  the  clergy  and  people  against 
their  influence.  What  wonderful  "  unity  "  does  the  "  Apostles'  Creed"  preserve? 
This  is  the "  unity  "  which  according  to  Bishop  Otey,  "precludes  all  just  occasion 
for  divisions  !  "  If  the  Episcopal  Church  did  not  regard  an  external  shellof  unity  with 
such  a  superstitious  reverence,  as  to  permit  to  be  held  and  taught  in  it,  (as  Alexander 
Campbell  once  said  of  the  Campbellites)  "  all  sorts  of  doctrines  by  all  sorts  of  peo- 
ple," it  would  have  been  rent  long  since  into  a  thousand  fragments.  But  as  it  is, 
men  can  maintain  a  good  standing  in  "the  Church,"  and  preach  and  publish  all  the 
abhorrent  tenets  of  the  Papacy  and  whatever  else  suits  their  taste. 

(B.— Page  153.) 
What  WHS  the  cluiracter  of  the  early  "  Bishops  "  of  the  Christian  Church? — We  have 

*  Diseourses,  pp.  14,  15. 


APPENDIX.  Ill 

shown,  at  length  in  Chapter  III,  that  the  scriptural  Bishops  were  Presbyters,  ihe  Pas- 
tors of  single  congregations.  We  iiave  also  shown  from  the  Fathers  in  Chapter  IV, 
that  this  arrangement  continued  after  the  Apostolic  age,  until  innovations  entered  the 
Church,  the  scriptural  polity  was  invaded,  and  Prelacy  gradually  introduced.  We 
here  introduce  some  coZZafcrai evidence  going  to  show  that  those  called  "Bishops  " 
in  the  times  succeeding  the  Apostles  were  undoubtedly  but  the  Pastors  of  single  con- 
gregations. The  evidence  is  of  this  nature — these  Bishops  icere  so  thickly  planted,  that- 
the  supposition  that  they  were  Bishops  in  the  modern  Episcopal  sense  (that  is,  Pre- 
lates having  Priests  and  Deacons — two  grades  of  ministers — and  many  Churches  un- 
der their  care.)  is  highly  improbable,  indeed  absolutely  absurd.  Joseph  Bingham, 
an  eminent  divine  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  his  "Origines  Ecclesiastical,"  or 
Christian  Antiquities,  speaking  of  the  state  of  the  Churches  in  the  second  century,  says 
that  upon  theseacoastof  Palestine,  "  in  a  line  of  one  hundred  and  sixty  miles,  there 
tcerc  seventeen  or  eighteen  bishoprics  "  and  this  too  when  the  christians  were  only  a 
fraction  of  the  population.  Speaking  of  Latium  in  Italy,  he  says :  "  that  in  the  com- 
pass of  seventy  old  Italian  miles,  wliichare  not  quite  sixty  of  the  modern,  there  were 
between  twenty  and  thirty  bishoprics/'  As  late  as  the  fifth  century  (A.  D.  402)  when 
Innocent  I.  was  advanced  to  the  Papal  chair,  it  would  seem  from  a  letter  addressed  by 
liim  to  Decentius,  Bishop  of  Eugubium,  that  the  bishopric  of  Rome  did  not  even  ex- 
tend beyond  the  limits  of  the  city.  "This  is  certain,"  says  Bingham,  speaking  on 
this  point,  "that  the  diocese*  of  Rome  could  not  extend  very  far  any  way  into  the 
country  region,  because  it  was  bounded  on  all  sides  with  neighboring  cities  which 
lay  close  around  it.  On  the  north  it  had  Fidenaj,  a  Bishop's  See  in  those  times; 
though  as  Cluverand  Ferrarius  show  out  of  Dionysius  Hallicarnassensis,  it  lay  but 
forty  stad'm,  ov  Jive  miles  from  it.  On  the  east  it  was  bounded  by  the  diocese  of 
Gabii,  which  lay  in  the  middle  way  between  Rome  and  Praeneste,  about  twelve  or 
thirteen  miles  from  each.  A  little  inclining  to  the  south,  lay  the  diocese  of  Subaugusta, 
close  by  Rome.  Here  Helena,  the  mother  of  Constanline,  was  buried.  .  .  .  It 
was  so  near  Rome,  (Subaugusta)  that  the  writers  which  speak  of  Helen's  interment, 
commonly  say  she  was  burled  at  Rome.  ...  If  we  look  to  the  south  of  Rome, 
down  the  Tiber,  toward  the  sea,  there  we  find,"  continues  Bingham,  "three  dioceses 
in  three  cities,  none  of  them  above  three  miles  from  each  other,  nor  above  sixteen  miles 
from  Rome."  Again  Bingham  remarks:  "  Any  one  who  will  allow  himself  the  liber- 
ty of  making  just  observations,  may  easily  discover  a  difference  between  some  of 
the  first  conversions  and  those  that  followed  in  the  middle  ages  of  the  Church ;  for 
in  tiie  former,  it  is  evident  dioceses  were  generally  more  numerous  and  not  so  large  as  in 
the  latter.  The  whole  extent  of  Asia  Minor,  from  the  Hellespont  to  the  river  Eu- 
phrates, is  estimated  by  the  best  geographers  at  six  hundred  and  thirty  miles;  the 
breadth,  from  Sinus  Issicus  in  Cilicia,  to  Trabezond,  at  two  hundred  and  ten  ;  yet 
there  were  almost  four  hundred  dioceses  in  this  tract  of  land."  Bingham  is  here 
speaking  of  the  state  of  things  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century,  and  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that  his  estimate  is  far  below  the  full  number,  for  his  calculation  is 
evidently  based  ujion  a  wrong  principle.  His  list  is  taken  from  the  names  subscribed 
to  ancient  councils,  or  mentioned  in  ancient  records.  But  it  should  be  remembered 
that  the  records  of  many  councils,  and  other  important  documeiifs,  are  lost,  and  that 

'■  Bingham  says  that  "  nothing  can  be  plainer  than  the  use  of  the  word  Tta^ioixia  (parish)  for  a  dio- 
cese  down  to  the  foiirtli  ccntnry,  .  .  .  and  uow  (ibniil  this  time  '  liiiKesp,  '  licffitn  lo  be  used  ViU;- 
wiae." 


IV  APPENDIX. 

many  Bisliops  who  attended  councils  did  not  subscribe  their  proceedings.  Thus  ac- 
cordingto  Du  Pin,  a  Roman  Catholic  historian,  of  one  hundred  Bishops  who  attend- 
ed the  council  of  Cabarsussa,  held  A.  D.  393,  there  are  only  forty-three  whose  names  are 
subscribed.  Besides  this,  it  sliould  be  remembered  that  at  this  time,  the  christians  of 
Asia  fliinor  were  still  the  smaller  portion  of  the  population.  After  making  all  these 
allowances,  it  is  still  true,  according  to  this  Episcopal  antiquarian,  that  there  were  in 
that  region  ^'  almost  four  hundred  dioceses, ^^  and  yet  the  extent  of  territory  embraced 
by  them  was  considerably  less  than  twice  that  of  the  State  of  New  York !  Can  any 
one  seriously  believe  that  the  Bishops  planted  in  these  "dioceses  "  were  Prelates? — 
the  type  of  our  modern  Diocesans?  Credulity  itself  could  not  swallow  such  an 
absurdity. 

Besides  the  above  facts,  notice  the  following.  Du  Pin,  in  his  account  of  the  third 
council  of  Carthage,  held  A.  D.  397,  speaks  of  the  case  of  a  Bishop  who  has  only  one 
Elder  as  by  no  means  an  uncommon  occurrence.  Eusebius  mentions  that  more  than 
"six  hundred  Bishops"  attended  the  council  of  Antioch  to  consider  the  heresy  of 
Paul,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  about  A.  D.  260.  Also  at  a  conference  which  was  held 
v/ith  the  Donatists  in  Africa  in  A.  D.  410,  between  jive  and  six  hundred  Bishops  are 
said  to  have  been  present.  It  is  incredible  to  entertain  the  idea  that  such  a  number 
of  Bishops,  spread  over  such  comparatively  small  districts  of  country,  and  who  at- 
tended these  several  councils,  could  have  been  like  modern  Diocesans,  when  only  a 
fraction  of  tlie  whole  population  was  yet  converted  to  Christianity.  He  who  can 
see  in  these  early  Bishops  any  resemblance  to  modern  Prelates,  can  see  things  which 
are  not. 

(C— Page  167.) 

Further  testimonies  respecting  the  Apostolical  Succession. —  The  celebrated  Rev.  John 
Wesley  says  in  his  tcorks,  vol.  3:  "  I  deny  that  the  Romish  Bishops  came  down  by  unin- 
terrupted succesion  from  the  Apostles.  I  never  could  see  it  proved,  and  I  am  per- 
suaded I  never  shall.  But  unless  this  is  proved,  your  own  Pastors,  on  your  own  prin- 
ciples, are  no -Pastors  at  all."  Watson,  Wesley's  biographer,  says  in  his  life  of  Wesley: 
"  The  figment  of  the  uninterrupted  succession,  he  openly  said  he  knew  to  be  a  fable." 

The  learned  commentator  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  says:  "  By  the  kind  Providence  of  God, 
it  appears  that  he  has  not  permitted  any  Apostolical  succession  to  be  preserA'ed,  lest 
the  members  of  his  Church  should  seek  that  in  an  uninterrupted  succession,  which 
must  be  found  in  the  head  alone."  Again  he  says:  "  It  is  idle  to  employ  time  in  prov- 
ing that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  this  kind.  It  does 
not  exist.  It  never  did  exist  It  is  a  silly  fable,  invented  by  Ecclesiastical  tyrants,  and 
supported  by  clerical  coxcombs." 

Dr.  Doddridge';  says  in  his  Lectures:  "  It  is  a  very  precarious  and  uncomfortable 
foundation  for  christian  hope,  which  is  laid  in  the  doctrine  of  an  uninterrupted  suc- 
cession of  Bishops,  and  which  makes  the  validity  of  the  administration  of  christian 
ministers  to  depend  upon  such  a  succession,  since  there  is  so  great  a  darkness  upon 
many  periods  of  ecclesiastical  history ;  insomuch  that  it  is  not  agreed  who  were  thefirst 
seven  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  although  that  Church  icas  so  celebrated." 

(D.— Page  1G8.) 
The  matter  to  which  allusion  is  made  on  page  163  of  this  work,  is  as  follows:  — 
When  we  heard  Bishop  Otey  preach  the  third  discourse  of  the  series  here  reviewed, 


Al'PEJNDIX.  V 

in  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Woodville,  Miss.,  we  understood  him  to  declare  in  sub- 
stance, that  the  Episcopal  Church  did  not  trace  the  '-Apostolical  succession"  through 
the  Church  of  Rome,  but  independently  of  it  to  the  Apostles.  This  statement  was  an- 
nounced while  the  Bishop  was  replying  to  the  objection  that  the  succession  had  been 
broken  by  the  occupancy  of  the  Papal  chair  by  a  woman.  He  stated  tliat  the  objec- 
tion was  irrelevant  for  two  i-easons — that  the  succession  did  not  pass  through  that 
Church,  and  if  it  did  the  schisms  or  the  character  of  the  Popes  could  not  affect  it, 
for  the  Popes  did  not  ordain  or  consecrate  Bishops!  Tliis  startling  announcement  so  af- 
fected our  liistorical  nerves  that  we  were  not  quite  sure  that  we  iiad  heard  him  aright; 
but  summoning  a  little  more  attention  he  at  length  kindly  relieved  our  suspense  by 
reiterating  the  self-same  thing.  We  could  not  then  be  mistaken;  but  yet  we  were 
surprised.  We  had  been  accustomed  in  our  schoolboy  days  when  reading  England's 
history,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  to  find  the  terms  "Popes"  and  the  "Reformation 
from  Popery"  bandied  about  by  historians  so  unceremoniously,  that  we  did  not 
know  how  to  take  this  statement  of  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee."  Could  he  be  wiser 
than  all  the  historians  of  England?  Or  was  he  more  ignorant  than  a  schoolboy? — 
Or,  presuming  upon  the  ignorance  of  his  auditors,  was  he  acting  a  dishonest  part? — 
These  were  hard  questions.  While  we  were  pondering  them,  he  advanced  towards 
the  conclusion  of  his  discourse  and  remarked,  in  substance,  (probably  to  give  effect 
to  his  arguments  f?om  his  supposed  personal  consequence — though  he  has  seen  fit  to 
omit  the  remark  in  his  printed  discourse) — that  he  had  made  the  subject  (claims  of  Pre- 
lacy) a  study  for  twenty  years,  and  though  he  had  had  no  early  prejudices  in  its  favor,  yet 
he  could  not  come  to  any  other  conclusions  about  the  constittUion  of  the  ministry  than  those 
he  fiad  then  preached. 

When  we  replied  to  this  discourse  from  the  pulpit,  a  few  weeks  after,  (the  only 
one  of  the  series  we  had  heard,)  we  employed  the  following  language  in  speaking 
on  the  above  point.  It  is  taken  verbatim,  from  the  manuscript  we  then  used.  We 
gave  a  synopsis  of  the  Bishop's  discourse  in  a  series  of  propositions.  Among  them 
was  this:  "  6.  That  this  line,  in  which  the  Bishops  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
"  United  States  and  England,  claim  their  succession,  does  not  pass  through  the  Ro- 
"  mish  Church,  but  independently  of  it  to  the  Apostles:  and  that  the  Popes  of  Rome  do 
"  not  exercise,  and  never  have  exercised,  the  ordaining  power."  When  we  came  to 
discuss  this  proposition,  wc  introducedit  as  follows:  "  In  speaking  of  this  branch  of 
"  the  subject,  I  must  notice  the  most  extraordinary  and  unaccountable  of  all  the  state- 
"  raents  I  heard  Bishop  Otey  make  in  the  sermon  he  preached.  Those  of  you  who 
"  heard  him,  may  remember,  that  in  the  course  of  his  sermon,  he  alluded  to  the  ob- 
"  jection  which  had  been  brought  against  the '  Apostolical  succession,'  that  h  had  been 
"broken;  and  you  may  remember,  too,  that  in  attempting  to  answer  this  objection, 
"  he  spoke  of  the  story  of  the  female  '  Pope  .Joan,'  as  an  alleged  instance  of  its  hav- 
"  ino-  been  broken ;  and  you  may  further  remember,  that  after  disposing  of  this  story, 
"  he  passed  to  another  branch  of  his  subject,  without  even  alluding  to  another  single 
"  instance  where  the  succession  has  been  said  to  have  been  broken — thus  making  the 
"  impression  that  this  was  the  only  instance  ever  brought  forward !  I  will  not  insist 
'■'  upon  the  manifest  unfairness  and  want  of  candor  in  this  proceeding— let  that  pass 
"  — but  the  extraordinary  and  unaccountable  statement  is  this:  After  disposing  of  the 
"  story  of  '  Pope  Joan,'  he  said  in  substance — '  It  matters  not  whether  this  story  be  truth 
"  or  fiction,  as  tec  do  not  trace  our  succession  through  the  Romish  Church;  and  even  if  ice 
"  did,  this  female  Pope  cotdd  not  affect  us,  as  the  Popes  did  not  ordain!' 


VI  ' APPENDIX. 

"  This  is  the  statement  which  I  am  utterly  at  a  loss  to  account  for.  And  I  think 
"  you  will  be  equally  so,  when  I  give  you  the  facts.  There  is  nothing  plainer  upon 
"  the  very  surface  of  history,  for  more  than  eight  hundred  years,  than  the  contrary  of 
"  these  statements  of  the  Bishop !  Audi  venture  to  say,  that  the  celebrated  D'ls- 
"  raeli,  should  he  meet  with  this  statement  of  Bishop  Otey,  would  regard  it  as  one  of 
"  the  most  precious  gems  in  the  '  Curiosities  of  Literature'  that  he  had  ever  stumbled 
"  upon.  Neither  do  I  believe  he  could  find  many  such  in  any  other  literary  mine  on 
"  either  side  of  the  Atlantic."  After  introducing  the  proposition  in  question  by  tiie 
above  language,  we  then  cited  some  facts,  founded  upon  Bishop  Godwin's  Liyes  of 
the  English  Bishops,  which  showed  that  frequently  from  the  seventh  to  the  fifteenth 
century,  the  Bishops  and  the  Archbishops  of  the  English  Church  were  consecrated  iy 
the  Popes  in  person,  and  very  often  in  the  city  of  Rome.  We  also  read  the  oath  which 
all  the  English  Bishops  took,  swearing  allegiance  to  the  See  of  Rome.  Having  thus 
shown  in  the  most  conclusive  and  unimpeachable  manner,  that  the  "  Bishop  of  Ten- 
nessee," when  weighed  in  these  prelatical  balances,  was  found  wanting,  we  closed 
the  point  in  the  following  language :  "  I  say,  then,  that  it  is  utterly  unaccountable  to 
"  me — I  am  indeed  amazed — tliat  Bishop  Otey  could  stand  up  in  the  pulpit  on  the 
"  Sabbath  day,  and  make  the  statements  touching  this  point  which  he  did.  BIy 
"  charity  cannot  stretch  so  far  as  to  permit  me  to  believe  for  a  moment,  that  he  was 
"  ignorant  of  these  historical  facts.  I  cannot  pay  such  a  compliment  to  his  erudition, 
"  as  to  suppose  that  he  was  ignorant  of  them,  and  yet  I  cannot  account  for  the  state- 
"  ment.     /  leave  him,  to  account  for  it,  to  his  conscience,  and  to  his  God!" 

Soon  after  the  discourse  from  Avhicli  the  above  language  is  taken  was  preached, 
some  of  Bishop  Otey's  friends,  perceiving  undoubtedly  that  their  Bishop  had  placed 
himself  in  a  very  awkward  predicament,  (provided  our  representation  of  his  sermon 
on  this  point,  and  the  facts  purporting  to  have  been  derived  from  Bishop  Godwin, 
were  true,) — some  of  his  friends  we  say,  endeavored  to  raise  a  question  of  veracity — 
somewhere.  Some  asserted  that  we  had  charged  Bishop  Otey  \\\i\\  falsehood — that 
is,  to  use  their  very  language,  which  was  kindly  tendered  and  which  we  have  in 
writing,  represented  us  as  employing  these  precise  words:  "  He  must  either  be  ignorant 
of  history  (which  you  [we]  intimated  was  highly  probable,)  or  must  have  known  that 
ichat  he  preached  WAS  yoT  TRUE."  We  have  nothing  to  say  on  this  point.  The  lan- 
guage which  we  have  given  above,  as  a  part  of  the  discourse  we  preached,  speaks 
for  itself.  Whether  it  accords  with  what  was  attributed  to  us,  or  whether  it  charges 
the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee  "  with  falsehood,  the  public  can  determine  in  a  shorter 
space  than  "  twenty  years."     We  have  no  disposition  to  qualify  or  recall  it. 

But  there  was  another  question,  (perhaps  of  veracity)  of  far  more  serious  import. 
Believing  that  we  did  perhaps  charge  Bishop  Otey  with  falsehood,  his  friends,  in 
their  secret  musings  and  social  conclaves,  were  probal)]y  disposed  to  ask  themselves, 
"  Is  the  charge  true?  Did  the  Bishop  really  preach  what  was  false,  or  is  this  disse7i- 
ter  guilty  of  both  falsehood  and  slander?"  Here  was  "  where  the  shoe  pinched." — 
It  was  deemed  necessary  by  the  Bishop's  aggrieved  friends,  to  vindicate  him  either 
from  childish  ignorance  of  history  (after  "  twenty  years  study,")  or  from  falsehood,  in 
positively  denying  the  facts  of  history.  How  should  it  be  done?  To  admit  that  he 
was  ignorant,  would  be  mortifying  He  was  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee  "!  having 
Mississippi  too  under  his  "  provisional  jurisdiction  ;"  and  a  man  who  holds  so 
high  a  station,  and  rules  over  and  instructs  Pastors  and  people,  surely  cajmot  be  ignor- 
ant!    And  if  he  were  really  ignorant,  how  dare  he  assert  with  so  much  positiveness? 


APPENDIX.  VU 

Thesn  thoughts  undoubtedly  troubled  the  Prelate's  friends,  and  we  may  well  sujtpose 
them  in  a  quandary.  Well,  what  next?  If  not  ignorant,  can  his  statement  that 
the  Popes  did  not  consecrate  Bishops  be  true?  This  was  a  difficult  question  to  dis- 
pose of;  for  if  true,  it  would  bring  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee  "  into  direct  collision 
with  the  "  Bishop  of  Landatf."  As  Bishop  Godwin  wrote  as  a  historian,  and  Bi- 
shop Otey  as  a  partisan,  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  judge  between  them.  AVould 
it  do,  then,  for  want  of  a  better  defence,  to  say  that  the  "  dissenter  ''  had  misrepre- 
sented Godwin?  This  was  not  even  pretended  by  anyone;  at  least  no  such  pre- 
tence ever  came  to  our  knowledge.  "  How  then  can  we  vindicate  our  Bishop?" — 
Oh !  here  it  is  at  last !  And  it  was  finally  announced  to  us  by  a  friend  of  the  Bishop, 
after  weeks  had  passed  away,  that  we  had  beyond  all  doid)t  misunderstood  Bishop  Otey! 
— that  he  heard  him  too,  and  was  sure  he  did  not  say,  that  the  Popes  did  not  consecrate 
Bishops! — or  at  least  if  the  Bishop  did  say  anything  like  it,  he  qualified  it  by  saying 
that  he  was  not  aicare  that  they  ever  consecrated  Bishops!!  Thus  the  learned  Pre- 
late was  kindly  relieved  by  his  friend  at  the  small  expense  of  our  good  hearing  ! 

So  matters  stood  until  the  Bishop's  discourses  appeared  in  print,  when  it  was  not 
difficult  to  determine  whether  the  auditory  nerves  of  his  friend  or  our  own,  had  the 
better  claim  to  soundness.  We  have  already  stated  that  the  printed  copy  of  these 
discourses  is  somewhat  modified ;  but  we  have  no  doubt  that  with  regard  to  the  point 
in  question,  "  they  are,"  as  the  preface  states,  "given  to  the  public,  just  as  they 
were  preached;"  for  we  find,  that  in  the  short  space  of  four  pages  of  his  pamphlet, 
Bishop  Otey  makes  the  statement  we  attributed  to  him,  no  less  than  sevcti  times,  and 
six  times  in  the  most  direct  and  unqualified  manner! ! !     Here  is  his  language : 

"The  succession  for  which  we  contend,  although  it  is  indirectly  connected  with 
the  Roman  Church,  as  Christianity  itself  at  one  time  was,  yet  it  does  not  run  through 
the  line  of  Roman  Pontiffs  at  all."  Once  directly  denied,  p.  G6.  Again  :  "  But  take  it 
as  all  true,  out  and  out,  [story  of  Pope  Joan,]  does  it  invalidate  the  Episcopal  sue 
cession?  Not  at  all.  For  first  of  all,  if  it  did,  it  must  be  shown  that  the  Popes  of 
Rome  consecrate  Bishops — which  they  do  not."     Second  time  directly  denied,  p. 

67.  Again:  "But  I  would  ask,  what  becomes  of  the  succession  in  the  British  Church? 
The  Bishops  of  that  Church  were  not  consecrated  by  the  Popes  of  Rome.  The 
same  may  be  asked  of  any  other  Church?"  Third  time  directly  denied,  p.  68. — 
Again;  "The  tnith  (!)  is,  as  before  stated,  the  Pope  does  not  consecrate  Bishops  at 
ALL,  unless  it  be  in  Rome  or  parts  adjacent,  of  which  I  am  not  certainly  informed 
one  way  or  the  other."  Fourth  time,  the  denial  qualified,  p.  68.  Again:  "The 
objection  is  grounded  on  the  gratuitous  assumption,  that  the  succession  must  be 
traced  through  the  Roman  Pontiffs."     Fifth  time  amounting  to  a  direct  denial,  p. 

68.  Again:  "  Now,  as  already  stated,  the  succession  does  not  run  in  this  channel, 
because  the  Pontiff  does  not  consecrate."  Sixth  time,  directly  denied,  p.  68. — 
Here  are /oar  denials  in  the  same  page  !  Again:  "  But  suppose  for  argument's  sake 
that  the  succession  does  come  through  the  Roman  Church — that  the  Pope  did  confirm 
the  election  of  Bishops,  and  order  their  consecration  by  other  Bishops,  which  is  the 
utmost  that  can  be  said,  does  this  invalidate  or  vitiate  the  succession."  Seventh  time 
directly  denied,  p.  70. 

Now  the  simple  question  is — Are  these  statements  of  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennes- 
see "  true  or  false?  If  there  really  be  a  want  of  veracity  and  fair  dealing  in  this 
business,  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  tell  at  whose  door  it  lies.  We  have  already  re- 
marked that  we  confuted  these  statements  from  the  pulpit  at  the  time  by  facts  stated 


VllI  APPENDIX. 

by  Bishop  Godwin,  a  witness  whom  even  Prelatists  wore  honncl  to  respect.  We  had 
not  Godwin's  work  before  us,  but  had  no  manner  of  doubt  that  the  statements  we 
gave  as  coming  from  him  were  strictly  true.  Since  tiial  time,  however,'for  the  es- 
pecial benefit  of  all  whom  it  may  concern,  we  have,  through  the  kind  'agency  of  a 
friend  who  has  our  thanks,  imported  from  London,  a  work  with  the  following  title': 
"  A  Catalogue  of  the  Bishops  of  England,  since  the  first  pi  anting  of  Christian  Religion 
in  this  Island,  together  with  a  briefe  History  of  their  lives  and  memorable  actions,  so  neere, 
as  can  be  gathered  out  of  antiquity:  whcreunto  is  prefixed  a  Discourse  concerning  the  first 
conversion  of  our  Britaine  unto  Christian  Beligion.  By  J'rancis  Godwin,  now.  Bishop 
of  Landaff.  Isaiah  42,  4. — He  shall  not  faile  nor  give  over,  till  he  hare  set  judgement  in 
the  earth,  and  the  Isles  shall  icaite  for  his  late.  London  :  Printed  for  Thomas  Adams, 
1615." 

From  this  work  of  Godwin,  it  is  quite  easy  to  disprove  the  reiterated  assertions 
of  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee,"  that  the  Popes  did  not  consecrate  Bishops,  and  that 
the  successoin  does  not  run  through  the  Romish  Church.  According  to  Godwin,  the 
Popes  or  Bishops  of  Rome  consecrated  many  of  the  Bishops  and  Archbishops  of 
England  from  about  the  middle  of  the  seventh  century  to  nearly  the  middle  of  the 
fifteenth,  a  period  of  eight  hundred  years.  Without  occupying  space  to  quote  God- 
win's own  words  upon  each  case,  we  barely  mention  here  some  of  the  names  of  Bi- 
shops and  Archbishops  in  some  of  the  principal  Sees,  with  the  names  of  their  ordain- 
crs  and  tiie  dates  of  their  ordination. 

Of  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury. — Theodorus  Avas  consecrated  at  Rome,  A.  D. 
668,  by  Pope  Vitalianus;  Nothelmus,  at  Rome,  736,  by  Pope  Gregory  III;  Lambert, 
at  Rome,  764, by  Pope  Paul  I;  Plegmund,  at  Rome,  889,  by  Pope  Formosus;  Agel- 
nothus,  at  Rome,  1020,  by  whom,  not  mentioned;  Theobald,  at  London,  1138,  by 
Cardinal  Albert,  the  Pope's  Legate  ;  Richard,  at  Anagni,  1171,  by  Pope  Alexander 
III;  Stephen  Langton,  atViterbo,  1206,  by  Pope  Innocent  III;  Boniface,  at  Lyons, 
1244,  by  Pope  Innocent  IV  ;  John  Peckham,  1278,  by  Pope  Nicholas  III ;  Robert 
Winchelsey,  at  Rome,  1294,  by  Cardinal  Sabinus;  Walter  Reynolds,  A.  D.  1313, 
by  Robert  Winchelsey  ;  Simon  Mepham,  at  Avignon,  1327.  by  order  of  Pope  John 
XXII;  John  Stratford,at  Avignon,  1333,  by  Cardinal  Vitalis  ;  Tho.  Bradwarnin,  at 
Avignon,  1348,  by  Cardinal  Bertrand;  Henry  Chichley,  at  Sienna,  1414,  by  Pope 
Gregory  XII.  These  will  suffice  for  what  Godwin  styles  "the  Metropoliticall  See 
of  Canterbury."     Of  the  other  Sees  we  shall  give  only  a  few  cases  as  a  specimen. 

Of  the  Arcld)ishops  of  York. — Thurstan,  A.  D.  1108,  by  Pope  Calixtus;  Henry 
Murdac,  1142,  by  Pope  Eugenius,  Roger,  1154,  by  Pope  Anastasius;  Thomas  de  Cor- 
bridge,  at  Rome,  1299,  by  Pope  Boniface  VIII;  William  de  Greenfield,  at  Lyons. 
1305,  by  Pope  Clement  V;  William  de  la  Souch,  at  Avignon,  1342,  by  Pope  Clem- 
ent VI. 

Of  the  Bishops  of  irinchcstcr. — Frithstane,  A.  D.  905,  by  Plegmund,  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  who  was  consecrated  by  Pope  Formosus;  Walkelin,  1070,  by  the  Pope's 
Legate  ;  Ethelmarus,  at  Rome,  1260,  by  Pope  Alexander  VI. 

These  lists  might  be  greatly  extended,  and  other  Sees  cited,  showing  that  during 
this  long  period,  a  vast  number  of  the  English  Prelates  were  directly  ordained  by 
the  Popes  in  person,  tlieir  Cardinals,  Legates,  <fec.,  &c.,  and  very  frequently  in  the 
city  of  Rome.  To  show  still  further  the  complete  subjection  of  the  British  Church 
to  the  Papal  anthority,  we  here  give  the  oath  which  all  the  English  Prelates  were 
obliged  to  take,  at  their  consecration,  swearing  allegiance  to  the  See  of  Rome,  and 


APPENDIX.  IX 

also  tlie  form  by  which  the  Pope  granted  the  pall  to  the  English  Prelates.  Foxe 
says  that  "  no  Archbishop  could  receive  the  pall,  unless  he  should  first  swear  ohedienct 
to  the  Pope.^'*  The  form  of  giving  the  pall,  and  the  oath,  are  taken  from  Godwin.-^ 
We  give  a  translation,  and  below  will  be  found  the  original,  as  in  Godwin,  in  his  ac- 
count of  the  consecration  of  Henry  Ueane,  to  the  Archbishopric  of  Canterbury,  in 
1501 ;  and  he  gives  these  forms  as  the  same  that  were  used  at  the  consecration  of  all 
the  English  Prelates,  with  only  the  necessary  variation  of  names,  &c.  The  bestow- 
ment  of  the  paU  upon  Deane  was  accompanied  with  those  words  :t  "  To  the  honor 
of  Almighty  God,  and  of  blessed  Mary  the  Virgin,  and  of  the  blessed  Apostles  Peter 
and  Paul,  and  of  our  Lord  Pope  Alexander  VI,  and  of  the  holy  Roman  Church,  and 
also  of  the  Church  of  Canterbury,  committed  to  your  charge,  we  give  to  you  the 
pall  taken  from  the  body  of  the  blessed  St.  Peter,  as  a  fullness  of  the  Pontifical  office. 
which  you  may  wear  within  your  own  Church,  upon  certain  days,  which  are  expres- 
sed in  the  privileges  of  the  said  Church,  granted  by  the  Apostolical  See."  The  oath 
which  every  English  Prelate  was  required  to  take,  and  which  is  here  administered 
to  Henry  Deane,  was  as  follows:  "I,  Henry,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  from  this 
hour  henceforth,  will  he  faithful  and  ohidient  to  the  blessed  St.  Peter,  and  to  the  holy 
Apostolic  Church  of  Rome,  and  to  my  Lord  Pope  Alexander  VI,  and  to  his  suc- 
cessors canonically  invested.  I  will  be  in  no  council,  nor  help  either  by  my  consent 
or  deed,  whei-eby  either  of  them,  or  any  member  of  them  may  be  impaired,  or 
whereby  they  may  be  taken  with  any  evil  taking.  The  council  which  they  shall 
commit  to  me  either  by  themselves,  or  by  messengers,  or  by  their  letters,  wit- 
tingly or  willingly,  I  shall  utter  to  none  to  tlieir  hindrance.  To  the  retaining  and  defend- 
ing the  Papacy  of  Rome,  and  the  royalties  of  St.  Peter,  I  shall  be  aider,  so  mine  order  be 
saved,  against  all  persons,  &c.,  Sec.  So  help  me  God,  and  these  holy  Gospels  of 
God." 

We  have  now,  as  we  think,  given  evidence  sufficient  to  disprove  the  seven  bold 
assertions  of  the  Bishop  of  Tennessee,  showing  that  the  English  Church,  for  a  long 
period,  was  as  really  a  part  of  the  Papal  See,  as  the  Church  in  Italy  itself;  and  also, 
that  the  Popes  of  Rome,  in  person,  frequently  ordained  the  English  Prelates.  If,  now, 

*  Speaking  of  Rodolphus,  the  thirty-fifth  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Godwin  says:  "  In  this  man's 
time,  TImrston  obtained  consecration  of  the  Pope  unto  the  Archbishopric  of  York,  without  making  the 
■usual  profession  of  obedience,  (or  which  there  was  long  time  after  much  adoo."  This  shows  that  it 
was  a  ease  of  great  rarity,  and  perhaps  the  only  one  that  occurred  while  the  Englisli  Church  was  sub- 
ject to  Rome. 

t  Godwin  says  of  Deane  :  "  His  pall  was  scut  unto  him  by  Hadrian  de  Castello,  the  Pope's  secretary, 
liiat  after  was  Bishop  of  Hereford  and  Wels,  as  also  a  Cardinall,  and  delivered  by  the  Bishop  of  Cov - 
entry,  with  these  words:  'Ad  honorcm  Dei  omnipotentis  et  B.  Mariae  Virginis  ac  Bb.  Petri  et  Pauli 
Apostornm,  et  D.  N.  Alexandri  Pp.  sexti,  et  S.  Romance  Ecclesiie,  nee  non  et  Cautuariensis  Ecclcsia' 
tibicommissre,  tradimus  palliu  de  corpore  B.  Petri  siimptum,  jjlenitudinem,  viz  :  Ponlificalis  ofiicii ;  ut 
utaris  eo  infra  ecclesiam  tuam  certisdiebus  qui  exprimuutur  in  priviiegiis  ei  ab  Apostolica  sede  con- 
eessis.'  Havuig  received  his  pall,"  continues  Godwin,  "  he  was  to  take  his  oath  unto  the  Pope,  which 
vnce  fur  all  it  shall  not  be  amisse  to  set  downe  :  '  Ego,  Henricus,  Archiep.  Cautuariensis,  ab  hac  hora 
ill  anteafidclis  et  obedicns  ero  B.  Petro  sanctreq ;  Apostolica;  Romanfe  Ecclcsiae  et  Domino  meo  D.  Alex- 
aiMlro  Pp.  C.  suisq;  successoribus  canonice  intrantibus.  Noii  ero  in  consilio  aut  concessu  vel  facto,  ut 
vitam  perdant  vel  membru  scu  capianturmala  captioue.  Concilium  vero  quod  mihi  credituri  sunt,  per 
ue  ant  nuntios  adeorum  damnum  me  sciente  nemini  pandam.  Papatum  Rom.  et  regalia  S.  Petriadiu- 
tor  ero  eis  ad  retinendum  el  defendendu,  &a\\io  ordine  nieo,  contra  omnem  hominem,''  &c.  &.c.  The 
»ath  as  found  in  Godwin  is  somewhat  longer  ;  but  this  part  exhibits  the  important  point — the  entire  sub- 
jection of  the  English  Prelates  to  Rome,  with  a  solemn  oath  to  maintain  and  defend  the  Papacy  at  all 
h;i?:ards,  and  against  all  persons. 

G* 


X  APPENDIX. 

there  really  be  a  question  of  veracity  between  the  "  Bishop  of  Tennessee  "  and  our- 
selves, the  reader  will  have  no  difficulty  in  ascertaining  its  real  aspect,  and  upon 
whom  rests  the  responsibility  of  having  betrayed  the  truth. 

(E.— Page  171.) 
Bishop  Oiey^s  "  Apostolical  paper  Succession,"  through  the  Archbishops  of  Canter- 
'•  '.'v. — In  his  Appendix,  pp.  84,  85,  Bishop  Otey  gives  the  public  a  pretended  list  of 
tiie  Archbisliops  of  Canterbury  from  Augustine,  A.  D.  596,  down  to  John  Moore,  A. 
D.  1783,  t!ie  consecrator  of  Bishop  White,  of  Pennsylvania;  and  also  from  Augus- 
tine, a  list  of  (alleged)  Prelates  of  Lyons  up  to  "Polycarp  Bishop  of  Smyrna," 
who,  it  is  affirmed,  was  consecrated  by  the  Apostle  John ;  and  thus,  the  impression  is 
intended,  that  the  American  and  English  Prelates  may  trace  their  orders  </<?'o?/^/t  Can- 
terbury, Lyons,  Smyrna,  *fec.,  to  John  at  Ephesus,  and  so  avoid  all  connection  with 
Rome.  This  list  purports  to  have  been  compiled  by  Rev.  Dr.  Henshaw,  and  copied 
by  Bishop  Otey.  It  is  introduced  with  these  words:  "  Rome  may  trace  its  line  to 
St.  Peter — the  Greeks  to  St.  Paul — the  Syrians  and  Nestorians  to  St.  Thomas,  and 
the  American  Episcopal  Church  to  St.  John.  Bishop  Uliite,  the  head  of  the  American 
line  of  Bishops  was  consecrated  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbuiy.  We  will  there- 
fore present  a  list  beginning  with  St.  John,  and  coming  through  the  Episcopate  of 
Lyons,  in  France  or  Gaul,  and  that  of  Canterbury  in  England,  till  it  connects  with 
ours  in  the  United  States  of  America."  Then  follows  the  list  from  "St.  John" 
through  Smyrna,  Lyons,  and  Canterbury,  to  Bishop  White,  making  in  all  one  hundred 
and  nineteen  names.  And  then  Dr.  Henshaw  remarks  as  follows:  "The  compilers 
of  the  list  from  which  the  above  was  taken  have  consulted  the  best  authorities,  and 
no  more  doubt  of  its  authenticity  can  be  entertained,  than  of  any  chronological  table 
of  historical  events,  or  list  of  the  sovereigns  of  any  country,  drawn  from  its  official 
registers  and  archives."  Let  (he  reader  bear  in  mind  the  point  here.  These  gen- 
tlemen propose  to  trace  Bishop  White's  consecration  (in  a  line  of  consecrators  of 
course,)  through  the  aforesaid  chain  of  one  hundred  and  eighteen  links,  to  the  Apos- 
tle John ;  and  further,  they  propose  to  do  this,  without  going  through  Rome ;  and  thus 
they  propose  to  prove  tlie  "  Apostolical  succession.^'  We  pronounce  the  whole  thing 
pretended,  deceptive,  wholly  false,  and  to  an  observing  mind,  not  even  plausible.  Let 
us  test  the  scheme.  This  scheme  of  proving  the  "thing  wonderful,"  is  based  upon 
at  least  eight  assumptions,  each  of  which  they  should  prove,  (as  (he  "  succession  " 
professes  to  be  based  upon  certainty,)  and  not  one  of  which  they  can  prove.  1.  It  is 
assumed  that  the  American  succession  (and  the  English)  can  be  traced  independently 
of  Rome;  which  we  have  disjiroved  from  Godwin.  2.  It  is  assumed  that  the  suc- 
cession can  be  traced  through  the  Prelates  of  Canterbury.  This  we  have  disproved, 
by  showing  that  a  list  of  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  does  not  exhibit  a  list  of  or- 
dainers,  as  they  did  not  ordain  their  successors.  Admitting,  then,  that  Dr.  Henshaw's 
list  is  perfect,  it  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  proving  the  "  Apostolical  Succession." 
3.  It  is  assumed  that  this  list  is  a  correct,  undoubted,  certain  list  of  the  incumbents  of 
the  See  of  Canterbury.  Now  admitting,  merely  for  the  argument's  sake,  that  the 
slu-ccssion  may  be  traced  through  Canterbuiy,  are  these  gentlemen  confident  that 
I'ldr  list  is  a  complete  list  of  the  Prelates  in  that  Sec?  Has  it  as  great  a  claim  to  un- 
doubted evidence  of  its  correctness,  as  is  pleaded  for  the  certainty  attending  the  succes- 
sion? We  shall  show  that  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  that  this  is  even  a  complete  list 
uf  tite  MERE  yi AMES  of  thc  Arclibisliops  of  Canterbury .'!     4.  Admitting  for  argument's 


APPENDIX.  XI 

sake  all  the  previous  assumptions  to  be  true,  it  is  assumed  also  that  tliese  Prelates 
were  all  duly  consecrated;  that  is,  by  Prelates  themselves  duly  consecrated,  and  they 
by  others,  and  so  on  to  the  Apostles.  Indeed,  it  is  assumed  on  tiiis  point,  (and  a  per- 
fect absurdity  it  is,)  that  each  incumbent  in  this  Sec  ordained  his  successor!  If  this  be 
not  assumed,  what  has  it  to  do  with  proving  tlie  succession?  5.  It  is  assumed  that 
each  of  these  Prelates  was  previously  ordained  Priest,  and  rightly.  G.  That  each 
was  also  ordained  Deacon.  7.  That  each  was  prelatically  confirmed.  8.  That  each 
was  prelaticaly  baptised.  What  a  formidable  array  of  assumptions  to  prove  a  sclieme 
which  boasts  historical  ccrtoiM<2/,  and  is  so  "evident"  that  "anyone  may  investigate 
it!" 

As  we  have  just  said,  admitting  these  assumptions  to  be  true,  this  list  has  nothing  to 
do  loith  proving  the  "  Apostolical  succcssiaii,"  for  it  does  not  exhibit  a  connected  list  of 
ordaincrs.     The  ordainers  of  these  Prelates  of  Canterbury,  for  eight  cen- 
turies, were  THE  Popes  of  Rome.     This  scheme  says  not  one  word  about  the  or 
dainers  of  these  Prelates ! !!     But  the  main  point  to  which  Ave  ask  the  reader's  attp' 
tionhere,  is,  that,  waiving  ail  other  points,  Ave  haA^e  not  undoubted  evidence  tliat  I  . 
list  of  Dr.  Hensha^v  and  Bisho])  Otey,  is  even  a  correct  list  of  tiie  incumbents  oi  ♦ 
See  of  Canterbury !     As  in  the  case  of  the  first  five  "  Bishops  of  Rome,"  wc  coh 
identify  the  men  !     The  proof  of  this  shall  be  taken  from  Episcr)pal  historians.    Ti' 
Dr.  Heuiliaw  says,  and  of  course  Bishop  Otey  endorses  it:  "The  compilers  of     . 
lists  from  which  the  above  Avas  taken,  have   consulted  the  best  authorities,  and  . 
more  doubt  of  its  authenticity  can  be  entertained,  than  of  any  chronological  table  of  /<. 
iorical  events,  or  list  of  the  sovereigns  of  any  country,  draionfrom  its  o^fficial  registers  a.t. 
archives."     Let  us  consult  some  of  the  "  best  authorities,"  and  see  if  we  cannot  fii; 
enough  at  lea.'t  to  hang  a  "  doubt  "  upon.     If  we  can  lind  only  one  case  of  reasona- 
ble doubt,  our  position  will  be  sustained. 

In  speaking  of  "Nothelmus,"  the  tentii  in  the  See  of  Canterbury,  and  the  forty- 
second  in  Bishop  Otey's  list,  Godwin  says:  "  Henry  Huntingdon  affirmeth  one  Eg- 
briglU  to  have  succeeded  Tatvvyn,  [the  ninth  in  the  list].  I  have  not  found  him  men- 
tioned elsewhere ;  and  therefore,  to  follow  the  report  of  the  greater  number,  I  will 
omit  him  and  pass  unto  Nothelm."  Here  it  seems  the  authors  ditt'er  as  to  the  succes- 
sor of  Tatvvyn, some  a.flirming  Egbright,  and  some  Nothelmus;  and  Godwin  decides 
in  favor  of  the  majority.  This  at  least  is  the  republican  doctrine ;  but  what  certainty 
isthere?  Take  another  case.  Dr.  John  Inett,  in  his  "  OriginesAnglicance,"  or  His- 
tory of  the  English  Ciutrch,  informs  us  that  towards  the  close  of  the  eighth  century, 
the  See  of  Canterbury  Avas  divided  into  two  parts  for  several  years ;  and  with  regard 
to  one  of  these  sections,  he  acknowledges  "that  the  difficulties  of  succession  in  that 
See  between  the  year  768  and  the  year  800,  u-c/e  invincible."  Here  is  a  wholesale 
admission  of  uncertainty.  Take  one  more  case.  Speaking  of  the  death  of  Dui.- 
stan,  Avhoni  Godwin  makes  the  twenty-third  in  the  See  of  Canterbury,  and  the  fifty- 
fifth  in  Bishop  Otey's  list,  Dr.  Inett  says:  "Ethelgar,  late  Abbot  of  the  new  monas- 
tery in  Winchester,  and  at  this  time  Bishop  of  Winchester,  succeeded  to  the  chair 
of  Canterbury  the  year  folloAving,  but  dying  the  same  year,  our  historians  are  wf 
agreed  tcho  succeeded,  some  confidently  pronouncing  in  favor  of  Siricius,  others  of  Etfri 
cus."  Dr.  Inett  says,  indeed:  "  A  late  learned  antiquary  rfc^er/nincs^osiiirc/j/ on  tii^' 
side  of  Siricius."  But  Ave  may  Avell  ask,  hoAV  a  "late  learned  anti(|uary  "  cou:; 
" positively  determine"  a  matter,  Avhere  earfier  historians,  at  least  equally  competent 
to  judge,  have  differed  so  widely?     Bishop  Otey  and  his  friend  have  a  convenient 


XU  APPENDIX. 

way  of  getting  over  the  difficulties  of  this  case.    They  give  a  place  in  tlieir  list  to 
BOTH  the  competitors !     This  is  cutting  the  knot  with  a  witness ! 

The  reader  may  now  see  what  certainty  attends  the  identity  of  tlie  men  who  filled 
the  See  of  Canterbury.  If  we  have  no  certainty  in  such  a  matter  as  this,  what  can 
we  have  for  ail  the  points  material  to  proving  the  prelalical  succession? 

(F.— Page  201.) 
The  following  is  the  Act  of  the   Britisii  Parliament,  in  virtue  of  which   Bishops 
White,  Provoost,  and  Madison,  obtained  authcrity  to  give  the  "shock  Divine"  to 
the  Clergy  of  the  American  Episcopal  Church  : 

"An  Act  to  empower  the  Arclilishop  of  Canterbury,  or  the  Archbishop  of  York,  for  the  time 
being,  to  consecrate  to  the  office  of  a  Bishop,  persons  being  subjects  or  citizens  of  coun- 
tries out  of  His  Majesty's  dominions. 

Whereas,  by  the  laws  of  this  realm,  no  person  can  be  consecrated  to  the  office  of  a 
Bishop,  without  the  king's  license  for  his  election  to  that  office,  and  the  royal  mandate 
under  the  great  seal  ior  his  con^rmat'ion  and  consecration:  And  whereas,  every  per- 
son who  shall  be  consecrated  to  the  said  office,  is  required  to  take  the  oaths  of  alle- 
giance and  supremacy,  and  also  the  oath  of  due  obedience  to  the  Archbishop;  and 
whereas,  there  are  divers  persons,  subjects,  or  citizens  of  countries  out  of  his  Ma- 
jesty's dominions,  inhabiting  and  residing  within  the  said  countries,  who  profess 
the  public  worship  of  Almighty  God,  according  to  the  principles  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  who,  in  order  to  provide  a  regular  succession  of  ministers  for  the 
service  of  their  Church  are  desirous  of  having  certain  of  the  subjects  or  citizens  of 
those  countries  consecrated  Bishops,  according  to  the  form  of  consecration  in  the 
Church  of  England  : 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  King's  most  excellent  Majesty,  and  by  and  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Lords  spiritual  and  temporal,  and  Commons,  in  this  present  Par- 
liament assembled,  and  by  the  authority  of  the  same:  that  from  and  after  the  passing  of 
this  act,  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  to  and  for  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  the 
Archbishop  of  York,  for  the  time  being,  together  with  such  other  Bishops  as  they 
shall  call  to  their  assistance,  to  consecrate  persons  being  subjects  or  citizens  of 
countries  out  of  His  Majesty's  dominions.  Bishops  for  the  purposes  aforesaid,  with- 
out the  King's  license  for  their  election,  or  the  royal  mandate  under  the  great  seal, 
for  their  confirmation  and  consecration,  and  without  requiring  them  to  take  the  oaths 
of  allegiance  and  supremacy,  and  the  oath  of  due  obedience  to  the  Archbishop  for 
the  time  being:  Provided,  always,  That  no  person  shall  be  consecrated  Bishop,  in  the 
manner  herein  provided,  until  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  or  the  Archbishop  of 
York,  for  the  time  being,  shall  have  first  applied  for  and  obtained  His  Majesty's 
License,  by  warrant  under  his  royal  signet  and  sign  manual,  authorizing  and  empow- 
ering him  to  perform  such  consecration,  and  expressing  the  name  or  names  of  the  pep- 
sons  so  to  be  consecrated;  nor  until  the  said  Archbishop  has  been  fully  ascertained  of 
the  sutBciency  in  good  learning,  of  the  soundness  of  their  faith  and  of  the  purity  of 
their  manners:  Provided  also,  and  it  is  hereby  declared,  tliat  no  person  or  persons  con- 
secrated to  the  office  vf  a  Bishop  in  the  manner  aforesaid,  nor  anv  person  or  persons 
DERIVING  their  CONSECRATION  from  Or  Under  any  Bishop  so  consecrated,  nor  any 
person  or  persons  admitted  to  the  order  of  deacon  or  priest  by  any  Bishop  or  Bishops 
so  consecrated,  or  bv  the  successor  or  successors  of  any  Bishop  or  Bishops  so 
consecrate  ..   hall  be  thereby  enabled  to  exercise  his  or  their  respective  office  or  offi- 


APPENDIX.  Xlll 

ees  within  His  Majesty's  dominions:  Provided  always,  and  be  it  further  enacted,  that 
a  eertificate  of  such  consecration  shall  be  given  under  the  hand  of  the  Archbishoji 
viho  consecrates,  containing  the  name  of  the  person  so  consecrated,  with  the  addi- 
tion ds  well  of  the  country  whereof  he  is  a  subject  or  citizen,  as  of  the  church  in 
which  he  is  appointed  Bishop,  and  the  further  description  of  his  not  having  taken 
the  said  oaths,  being  exempted  from  the  obligation  of  so  doing  by  virtue  of  this 
aot." 


u 


